Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 April.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Council Constitutions

Mr. Tony McWalter: What representations he has received opposing his plans to divide councillors into those with an executive function and those with a scrutiny function; and if he will make a statement. [116141]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have received many representations both supporting and opposing our proposals for new constitutions for councils. The evidence is that local people want directly elected mayors to lead their communities.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that it is not her intention to have a single monolithic model imposed on all councils and, in particular, that, as long as councils achieve the aim of greater transparency in their dealings, the Government agree that that is an effective way to run local councils?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. The reforms in the Local Government Bill will open up many opportunities for councils to run themselves in the way that is most appropriate to their local area, after consultation with local people. Greater efficiency, transparency and accountability are at the heart of the Bill—as the Joint Committee recognised when it

considered the Bill in draft. The traditional committee system does not meet that aim; that is why we want to move forward.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Minister old enough to remember the words of the old Erasmic shaving soap advertisement? Does she think that £58,500 a year for three days work a week on Cardiff council is a bit too much, not enough or about right?

Ms Armstrong: I am concerned that we should have a local government system that local people feel is really effective and is working for and with them. I do not know about shaving soaps—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman but the matter is not one that I spend much time worrying about. However, I do spend time trying to ensure that local government is open, accountable and working with local people.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister explain how, on the one hand, the Government are in favour of devolution of power, but, on the other, in relation to local authorities, they seem to be concentrating on the centralisation of power in the hands either of a mayor or a leader and a cabinet? Does the Minister accept that, if a councillor does not fit into one of those categories, his or her role will be minimal? Will she accept the amendment from the other place that gives local authorities the option of maintaining the status quo?

Ms Armstrong: There is a slight problem with the amendments from the other place; three or four were accepted—all are contradictory. The status quo does not allow for scrutiny. It does not allow local people to find out what is really happening in their council; what the effect of any of its decisions would be on the ground; and how they would be implemented. The present system was right for 150 years ago, when few people had the franchise and were allowed to sit on councils. That system does not meet the needs of modern society or the demand from local people to have a better look at what is happening in their council and at the consequences of its decisions.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: As the Labour leader of Cardiff receives £58,500 a year, as we have heard, and leaders of London boroughs are likely to receive £45,000, is there not a real danger of creating two classes of councillor? After the clear-cut vote in the Lords recently, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to remove the freedom of local councils to choose their own structures? Will she listen to the voices of people such as her hon. Friends, the Local Government Association and councillors of all parties, including the Labour campaign for open local government—with 1,000-plus supporters, of whom 500 are councillors from 80-plus councils? Is it not high time that she and her friends gave up this control-freakery?

Ms Armstrong: We are trying to emerge from an era when only one system was possible. At present, only the committee system is legal. The Bill offers a wide framework; those councils that have begun preparations to introduce it are coming up with widely different forms of governance. They are doing so after consultation with


local people. Of course, it is important that I consider and scrutinise what the Lords have said. I am discussing matters with the LGA; I met the LGA again last week. However, the Government have the right to ensure that the basic integrity of the Bill is preserved; we shall make sure that scrutiny—far from having a second-tier, less important role—is properly recognised as essential to good local government.

London Transport

Mr. Harry Cohen: What plans he has for reform of the management of London Transport. [116143]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): I have reformed the London Transport board and appointed a new chairman and a new managing director of London Underground and a new chief executive. The Government have also decided to introduce the public-private partnership. This will tackle the £1.2 billion investment backlog, provide a stable funding environment and secure long-lasting improvements for the underground.
When the mayor takes office, Transport for London—one of the functional bodies of the Greater London Authority—will take over all London Transport's current responsibilities, except London Underground. London Transport will continue to manage London Underground until the public-private partnership has been put in place.

Mr. Cohen: I support the changes to London Transport that my right hon. Friend has announced, which will make it more dynamic and effective in delivering better public services. However, with two French and one US-dominated consortiums shortlisted to run the deep-level underground, and with several other arrangements involving the private sector, what special arrangements will the Government make to ensure that there is effective public service management at London Transport? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will not end up with a situation similar to the one involving Railtrack and the train operating companies, in which they blame each other for performance failures?

Mr. Prescott: It is important to ensure that the outputs of the infracos, or infrastructure companies, can be measured and that we have the proper management to measure them and make proper checks on the financial contributions that are made. Of course, incentives will be built into the system. If the organisations achieve their targets, they will do well. If they fail, they will face a penalty. That point will be built into the contracts. It is my belief—this will be subject to the public sector comparator—that public-private financing will be cheaper than the bond issue that is talked of. Those matters will be settled later, but I have no doubt that Londoners will benefit from a long-term approach to investment in the modernisation of the underground. That will be in contrast to the difficulties that we have faced from the stop-go economy which has reduced the necessary public investment in London Underground.

Mr. Don Foster: Does the Deputy Prime Minister have confidence in the management of London Transport, given that the money that it has spent on

private consultants has gone up two and a half times since the Government came to office? Could that money not have been better spent on repairing the 55 escalators that are currently out of action on London Underground? Is that really the fault of the management—or is it not perhaps the fault of the Government for persisting with their ill-advised and costly sell-off of the underground?

Mr. Prescott: The problems with the escalators and their age are a function of disinvestment in the underground over many years. We are attempting to establish an entirely different financial framework for the underground, so that it is publicly owned and publicly accountable. That will guarantee a proper maintenance programme, so that there will not be breakdowns as there are at the moment. If we are to achieve that, consultants must give advice. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to make a judgment without proper and informed advice.

Mr. Andrew Love: I am a London Member, and my constituents are looking for a modernisation of the tube that will achieve two things. First, they want reassurance that it will remain in the public sector. Secondly, and perhaps more important, they want value for money for the public purse. Can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that both those aims will be achieved?

Mr. Prescott: It is clear that, under legislation, I have an obligation to the House to subject whatever ideas I have for the financing of the underground to the public sector comparator. I have to provide best value. That is what I am required to do by the House and that is what I intend to do. We have received the bids in the past few days, and I believe that those aims will be achieved. My hon. Friend will be able to judge whether we achieve them.
London Underground will be publicly owned, publicly accountable and properly financed. Indeed, in those circumstances, it will offer a better opportunity for the proper investment to be made in it. It is not privatisation; I do not know of any facility that has been privatised where the assets have been returned to the public.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Secretary of State refers to the £100 million spent on consultants, can he recall any time, when he was in opposition, when he supported any money being spent on consultancies? He talks about disinvestment, so will he explain why in every year that he has been in charge less Government money has been spent on the tube than under the previous Conservative Government? Is not the chaos on the tube the result of the PPP being more than a year behind schedule, and is that not another emblem of the right hon. Gentleman's own personal failure? As he boasts about an extra £280 million from the Budget for transport, will he come clean with the House and explain that £100 million of that has been cut from his roads maintenance budget?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. There is more core investment going into the underground than went in under the previous Administration. I defy him to find any instance of my complaining about spending money on consultants in such matters; all Governments have to take advice. Considerable criticism


was made of the sums that the previous Administration spent on consultants—up to £500,000 in respect of rail privatisation—and there was a legitimate argument about that. We shall produce an underground that receives proper investment to deal with the problems left to us as a result of the Conservatives' disinvestment in the underground.

Standard Spending Assessment (Southend)

Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the level of the standard spending assessment for Southend for 2000–01. [116144]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Ms Beverley Hughes): Southend-on-Sea borough council wrote to the Department on 22 December, during our consultation period, commenting on the local government finance settlement for 2000–01. We also received inquiries from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Mr. Amess: Is the hon. Lady aware that, a few weeks ago, I was invited by the Labour/Liberal-controlled council to meet a Health Minister to discuss the crisis in social services in Southend? When the delegation told the Minister that the council was having to close old folks' homes, introduce charges for people with learning disabilities and increase charges for home helps, the Minister helpfully suggested that representations be made about the standard spending assessment. Will the hon. Lady advise Labour councillors on how they can stop further cuts in Southend?

Ms Hughes: My information does not accord with that of the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that a meeting took place and that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), asked the council to submit plans for extra money to deal with social services issues. However, Southend did not request extra funding from the budget; in the end, it informed the Department of Health of an underspend of £31,000 from the partnership fund, which it was able to use.
In general terms, the council is increasing its planned spending by almost 6 per cent.: it is providing for education growth of 7 per cent. and social services growth of 4 per cent. The Tory group did not even bother to submit an opposition budget. Provision is being made for increased investment in services, which stands in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government, when there were rises in council tax and cuts in services.

Housing Density (South-East)

Jane Griffiths: What plans he has to increase housing density in the south-east of England. [116147]

The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): Planning policy guidance note 3, which we issued on 7 March, makes it clear that local authorities should plan for quality development and more efficient

use of land. They should avoid housing densities of less than 30 dwellings per hectare net and encourage developments of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net. Those policies are also reflected in the draft changes to the regional planning guidance for the south-east, which we published on 27 March.

Jane Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to increase housing density in areas such as my constituency in the heart of the Thames valley, in the interests not only of sustainability, but of affordability, so that key workers such as nurses, teachers and bus drivers can afford to come and live in such areas?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes two valid points. First, she highlights the importance of concentrating development in brownfield sites and of contributing toward urban renaissance, both of which form a crucial part of our planning policy guidance on housing and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Secondly, she emphasises the importance of doing more to house people in need, who have difficulty obtaining housing in areas of great pressure, such as the Thames valley. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is shortly to make a statement on our housing Green Paper, in which we expand on our policies to meet those objectives.

Mr. Archie Norman: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister back to the House after four weeks' absence. Now that we know what was in the Budget, we understand why he disappeared to Brazil. We also understand why, unusually, there was no Budget debate on Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions spending—there is to be hardly any DETR spending.
Will the Minister for Housing and Planning explain his arithmetic on the question of housing densities? Does he recall that the Government's proposed building rate will force councils in the south-east to build 900,000 new houses in the next 20 years, and that the Government insist that 60 per cent. of those dwellings should be built on brownfield sites? Will he confirm that 60 per cent. of 900,000 means 540,000 new houses on brownfield land? Does he recall the House of Commons Library estimate that only a maximum of 10,000 hectares are available on brownfield land? Can he tell us, therefore, what density level is needed to build 540,000 houses on 10,000 hectares, and how that compares with the density levels that he just cited and those already achieved in major cities such as London and Manchester?

Mr. Raynsford: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box? He has shown a certain reticence about appearing since his appointment. He has clearly misunderstood the main thrust of PPG3 and our regional planning guidance for the south-east. Predict and provide, which was the hallmark of his party's Government, is dead. We are no longer producing 20-year projections of housing.
The hon. Gentleman knows that we are concentrating on annual build rates, which in the case of the south-east is 43,000. Looking at the figures, he will realise that there is a plentiful supply of brownfield sites to meet the needs


of the south-east over the next five years. His figures are wrong. In future, he should do his homework before coming to the House.

Mr. Norman: The figures are not mine—they come from the House of Commons Library. They are the Minister's figures, and it is a matter of pure arithmetic. He has not attempted to answer the question, so let me answer it for him. The answer is 54 houses per hectare—higher than the figure that he cited, and higher than the density achieved in London. That target is regarded as wholly unachievable by every council leader in the south-east. Incidentally, it is no good the Minister speaking about five years, since every local council has to produce a structure plan for 10 years or more.
As that level of density is unachievable, does the Minister concede that many thousands of extra houses will be built on green fields? While we are about it, will he say who will pay for all the knock-on infrastructure—2,000 km of extra roads, 300,000 new school places, and 3,000 new hospital places? How will he deal with the extra commuting and congestion in the most congested parts of the country? Is it not time that he recognised that his entire policy is not just a disaster for the countryside, but unaffordable? As the Deputy Prime Minister said to the Prime Minister,
fancy dancing with figures is counterproductive.

Mr. Raynsford: It seemed to be quite a long time before the hon. Gentleman got to the point. May I remind him that what he is suggesting comes a little rich from the party that was represented by greenfield building all over the south-east, out-of-town shopping centres, motorways driven across countryside, and by the contempt for the environment in the south-east which characterised the term of that party in power?
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that our new policy means the end of predict and provide. It means annual build rates, not 20-year projections; concentrating development on brownfield sites; and getting higher quality developments in the cities as part of an urban renaissance. It is about time that his party woke up to the reality, rather than looking back to the disaster that the Conservatives caused when they were in office.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend comment on the view that a greater density of housing requires a lower land take? Has his Department done any work on the relationship of higher density to lower land take, particularly in the light of the various figures put forward for housing in the south-east, and in view of the land that has already been allocated for housing in local authority plans?

Mr. Raynsford: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have taken action where the previous Government did nothing, by publishing the national land use database to give us basic information about the availability of land on which plans can then be drawn up for development on brownfield sites. We will take that forward, as the NLUD needs to be improved over time. It has made an important start, but we can do better. Through capacity studies, we will also develop a closer analysis of what can be achieved. I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the key objective is to produce high-quality

housing where people will want to live, in order to enhance our urban renaissance policy and to protect the countryside from unnecessary development.

Single-person Households

Mr. Christopher Fraser: What estimate his Department has made of the increase in the number of single person households over the next 20 years. [116148]

The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): The latest, 1996-based, household projections suggest a net increase of 3.12 million households in England over the 20-year period from 1996 to 2016. Of these 2.13 million, some two thirds of the total, will be made up of one person living by him or herself.

Mr. Fraser: With those figures in mind, does the Minister agree with me that local people should determine their local housing requirements rather than the Government setting arbitrary figures? What consultation has he had with Purbeck district council, which has written to me today, and with Poole and East Dorset district councils in my constituency, about this matter? Without consultation, the Government's proposals mean the wrong houses for the wrong people in the wrong places.

Hon. Members: Wrong people?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the regional planning guidance for the south-west is undergoing examination in public. Clearly it would not be proper for me to respond on a detailed point, which will come to us for decision after the examination in public.
The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. It is important to ensure that there is provision for people in need, and a high proportion of need comes from the sons and daughters of people who live in the area, who want to continue to live there. Older people, the largest proportion of single people, now expect to have independent homes in their old age. That is another area of need. It would be a serious disservice to the needs of single people, either young or old, if no housing provision were to be made for them in their area. Regional planning guidance is an appropriate framework in which the necessary need can be identified and from which recommendations can be brought forward for individual counties.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend in dialogue with the Treasury over possible fiscal opportunities to reduce the proportion of single-person households, especially in respect of housing benefit rules that encourage adult children to leave home prematurely and in terms of taxes on second homes, equal VAT treatment for both conversion and new build, and multi-occupancy incentives for retired people, for example? Will my hon. Friend consider a portfolio of possible fiscal measures to encourage higher levels of occupancy?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a number of matters that will be expanded on by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister when we come to the statement on the housing Green Paper. It is integral to our


entire approach that we ensure that we create a planning framework that allows mixed and balanced communities in which single people can live side by side with families. We do not intend to repeat the mistakes of the past—of social stratification, with areas of exclusively large executive houses on one side and social housing on the other. We want mixed and balanced communities that will allow adequate provision for single people.

Mr. Peter Lilley: If the Minister's figures are correct and the bulk of new housing is needed for single-person households, will he reconsider the decision to build 10,000 houses on the green belt in my constituency, given that little of that housing will be suitable, either in type or in location, for single people?

Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman sounds rather like a gramophone record on this subject. He shows an inability to understand the basic framework on which Hertfordshire county council came forward with its proposals. He will know that there are no detailed plans at this stage for the composition of the housing stock and the proportions that will be single-person units, family units, and units suitable for the elderly. The right hon. Gentleman's ridiculous suggestion reveals something—the attitude of mind that was characteristic of the Conservative Government he served, under whom executive homes were encouraged to proliferate throughout the greenfield land in the south-east. We are ending that nonsense, for which the previous Government were responsible.

Mr. Damian Green: The Minister seems not to realise that his answer to this question wrecks the case that he made in answer to the previous question. Does he not accept that, on the basis of the Government's household projection figures, more than two thirds of the homes that are needed are required for single and mainly elderly people? His plans to build tens of thousands more homes than local authorities say they need will inevitably encourage developers to build more profitable three or four-bedroomed homes, which are just what single-person households do not need. Will the Minister not acknowledge that his policy attracts working-age people out of inner cities, threatens our green fields and ensures that, as long as he is in charge, we will continue building the wrong houses in the wrong places?

Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his answer before hearing my reply to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). I made it clear that we are not following Conservative party policy, which encouraged the proliferation of three and four-bedroomed executive homes.
We are specifically encouraging the development of more mixed communities. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) knows that we are encouraging more suitable provision, which allows higher densities, of houses for single people and families. The Greenwich millennium village is a good example of good-quality new housing at a high density of 80 people to the hectare. It incorporates social housing and housing for sale; housing for single

people and housing for families. It is an excellent example of the mixed development that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is pioneering, not before time.

Safety At Sea

Mr. Colin Breed: What plans he has to improve safety at sea. [116149]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Keith Hill): With regard to international shipping, the Government continue to play a leading role in efforts to enhance maritime safety through their active involvement in and support of safety initiatives that are being taken forward by the International Maritime Organisation and in the European Union. With regard to the United Kingdom fishing industry, the Government are determined to improve poor safety standards through a mixture of regulation and education to foster a culture in which safe practice, such as wearing automatic lifejackets while working on deck, is taken for granted.

Mr. Breed: I am sure that the Minister would wish to offer his condolences to the family and friends of Daniel Kebble, a young fisherman from Polperro in my constituency, who lost his life fishing earlier this year. Does the Minister accept that safety equipment such as lifejackets that are available to fishermen are either user friendly but do not fulfil the necessary buoyancy standards, or have the buoyancy but are bulky and not easy to use? Will he consider funding the relatively modest amount of research and development to marry the necessary qualities so that fishermen can obtain lifejackets that are user friendly and fulfil adequate safety standards?

Mr. Hill: I join the hon. Gentleman in extending condolences to the family of the young man in question. I agree with his wider point: immersion suits are designed for use in abandon-ship circumstances, not for continuous wear. Under an EU directive on a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels, all new vessels of 24 m and over must carry lifejackets. However, we are not persuaded that the United Kingdom should go further and require immersion suits to be carried on all vessels, regardless of size. There are anxieties in the industry about their practicality. However, the Government strongly recommend that fishermen should wear an automatic single-chamber inflatable lifejacket while working on deck and we have published standards for such garments.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my condolences to the family of the young man lost from the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), and also to the families of the two Lewis fishermen who were lost at sea at the weekend.
We need an early debate on safety at sea because not enough is being done. No fishing vessel should be allowed to leave port without survival suits on board for all members of the crew. It is not always possible for those lads to put them on when a vessel is foundering,


but when they have time to put on a survival suit, they increase their chances of survival dramatically. The Government must act through regulation.

Mr. Hill: I join my hon. Friend in offering condolences to the Lewis fishermen who were lost at sea at the weekend. My hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign about the availability of immersion suits. I reiterate that the Government are not persuaded that they are appropriate in all circumstances. However, my hon. Friend is right to emphasise the need for enhanced safety measures at sea. We believe that much can be done to improve the appalling safety record of the fishing industry, which is 10 times more dangerous than the next most dangerous industry, which is agriculture. Improvements can be achieved partly through equipment and partly through safety training.
We believe that the time has come to subject the 80 per cent. of the industry that operates in vessels under 12 m in length to a statutory safety code. As my hon. Friend knows, that has been under discussion with the industry for many years. We now propose to implement a mandatory safety code for under-12 m vessels by the end of April 2001.

Mr. James Gray: In the fishing industry, three vessels are lost and 11 sailors are killed a month. Both sides of the House will welcome what the Minister said about maximising safety standards. We would have welcomed what the Deputy Prime Minister said about safety grants last week, or last month—or last year rather. He said:
speaking for the Government as a whole, I have made clear that the fishing vessel safety equipment grants would continue.
In that case, why have the Government cancelled them?

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): It was to the end of that year.

Mr. Hill: As my right hon. Friend has accurately stated from a sedentary position, he was referring to the end of that particular year. My right hon. Friend obviously has a clearer sense of time than does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), who did not seem to know what time of the year my right hon. Friend had spoken.
I shall make the Government's position entirely clear. Grants to the fishing industry should not be used for the purchase of mandatory safety equipment. We believe that if further funds are to be made available to the industry, they should be used to enhance that essential safety culture by improved safety training techniques.

Housing Stock

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Which five local authority areas in England have the highest percentage of public and private housing stock built before 1919. [116150]

The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): The five local authority areas with the highest proportion of private sector housing built before 1919 are Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, Hackney, Kensington and Chelsea, and Pendle. The five authorities

with the highest proportion of pre-1919 council housing are Camden, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, and Kensington and Chelsea. We are committed to improving the housing conditions of the poorest households, and today's housing Green Paper will set out some new ideas for tackling those needs in both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Prentice: I knew the answer to my question before I asked it. Is the Minister aware that there is a unique cocktail of housing problems not just in Pendle, but next door in Burnley and in east Lancashire? Pendle ranks third in the entire country when it comes to unfit housing, and sixth in respect of empty housing. It is beyond the resources of local authorities in my area to tackle decades of neglect. I hope that, as a result of the housing Green Paper, of which we will hear details in about 20 minutes' time, the necessary resources will be pumped into the area to bring crumbling, useless housing up to a decent standard.

Mr. Raynsford: I fully recognise the points that my hon. Friend made about the condition of the housing stock and the problems of vacant property in his constituency. Pendle's allocation in 2000-01 under the housing investment programme was some 30 per cent. up on 1999–2000, and, as he anticipated, when he hears the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make in a few minutes' time, he will realise that the Government are very serious about extending the help available to improve conditions in areas such as his.

Train Services (Euxton)

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What measures he can take to increase the number of trains stopping at Euxton railway station. [116151]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Services at Euxton Balshaw Lane railway station are provided under a separate contract between Lancashire county council and First North Western. I understand that two additional services to Preston will call at the station at 11.20 and 13.20 from the beginning of the summer timetable in May this year. The franchising director is considering a bid from Lancashire county council under the rail passenger partnership scheme, which, if approved, would further enhance peak hour services.

Mr. Hoyle: I am pleased to learn that there will be an immediate increase in the number of trains stopping at the station. Is the Minister aware, however, that the first train heading north leaves at 8.15 am, although most commuters need to catch a train at about 7 am? Is he also aware that Euxton is the only railway station in Chorley that is on the west coast main line, and that no direct trains to Glasgow or London stop there? What can he do to provide better services and get people off the roads?

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is an indefatigable campaigner for his Chorley constituency. I thought that I was giving him genuinely good news in announcing the extra services, but his appetite for further improvements for his


constituents seems to be bottomless. I shall, of course, take account of his demands for further improvements in services to Euxton and Balshaw Lane stations.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Before the Minister devotes too many resources to Euxton, will he bear in mind the plight of rail services in north Lincolnshire? Last weekend, I had to spend—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a specific question.

Council and Housing Association Dwellings (London)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: If he will estimate the number of new council and housing association dwellings to be built in London in the next 12 months. [116152]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Although no new-build council homes are planned for next year, some replacement homes will be built as part of regeneration schemes. In addition, 5,400 new housing association homes are planned for London next year, of which 3,940 will be for rent.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister realise what a depressing answer that will be for thousands of people in London who are on housing waiting lists or transfer lists, or living in bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation? If we are to deal with the housing problem that affects anyone on an average or below average income in London, there must be a significant increase in the number of properties made available for rent by councils or housing associations. Especially in inner London, people look to the Government to ensure that money is spent not just on improving existing estates—although that is welcome and necessary—but on purchasing and providing new homes for rent. Failing that, London will become an increasingly socially divided city as poorer people are forced to move out because there is nowhere for them to live.

Mr. Mullin: I certainly acknowledge that there is a serious shortage of affordable housing in London, but I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the housing investment programme for London has increased dramatically under this Government. This year it will be £613 million, which represents a 54 per cent. increase on the previous year.
Let me also gently say to my hon. Friend that about 2 per cent. of Islington's council stock—not counting properties that are awaiting demolition or major renovation—are empty. One of the most effective ways of creating more affordable housing in London would be to put to proper use council housing in Islington—and, indeed, elsewhere—that is currently vacant. Islington has one of the highest vacancy rates.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Something else that has grown dramatically under this Government is the number of asylum seekers in London. How much of that social housing will be taken up by people who have been

on waiting lists for some time, and how much will, of necessity, have to be put aside for new arrivals and asylum seekers?

Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are making provision to disperse asylum seekers around the country.
This is not a problem that suddenly arose in May 1997. It existed long before then, and the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did very little about it. I regret attempts by some Conservative Members to play—let me call it not the race card but the asylum seeker card.

Urban Taskforce

Mr. Simon Hughes: When he will respond to the urban taskforce report. [116153]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Ms Hilary Armstrong): We propose to publish a response to the recommendations in the urban taskforce report later this year, at the same time that we publish our White Paper on urban policy.

Mr. Hughes: Given that one of the recommendations of the taskforce was that it should have an influence on the comprehensive spending review so that urban policy became a term of reference, may we have a date for the report's publication before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review? Also, may we have a guarantee that sustainable communities will be at the heart of the policy, and that in every instance regeneration will put first the interests of those who live in the urban communities that are to be regenerated?

Ms Armstrong: It is precisely because we want to take into account the urban taskforce's ideas—some of which we are already implementing and getting on with, but specifically those relating to the Government's wider policies, including our policies on regeneration and urban renaissance—that they will be considered as part of the spending review. We shall therefore respond to the ideas following the review. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are determined that we shall have regeneration that really means something, that changes the opportunities of those who live in such areas, and that ensures that those people are able to benefit from the advantages of regeneration. We are also determined to build sustainable communities, which are at the heart of our policy.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that, in the name of urban regeneration, Lord Rogers recommended a cut in VAT on residential renovations, has the right hon. Lady complained to the Treasury that such a helpful measure was not forthcoming in the Budget?

Ms Armstrong: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear all of the Budget, which showed that the Government believe that there is a strong case for stamp duty relief for new build on brownfield sites. We intend to consult on the matter. We shall demonstrate again that we recognise the important distinction between development on greenfield and brownfield sites. It really is a pity that the hon.


Gentleman and the previous Conservative Government did not do that. We shall be dealing with the need for urban renaissance through the tax system.

Concessionary Fares

Mr. Paul Burstow: What plans he has for a common age of entitlement to concessionary fares for older people. [116155]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): The Government have a strong commitment to concessionary travel for elderly people. In the Transport Bill, we are introducing a statutory minimum for local authority concessionary travel schemes, which will provide at least half-fare travel on buses. After the recent Budget, we announced that the bus pass will also be available free of charge. Those two measures will benefit up to 5.3 million senior citizens. Under the terms of the Pensions Act 1995, the age of entitlement for concessionary travel for both men and women will be equalised at 65 by 2020.

Mr. Burstow: The statutory minimum scheme will be greatly welcomed by very many pensioners across the country. However, given that fact, and given that the statutory minimum scheme will effectively make it unlawful to discriminate on grounds of age, will not the Secretary of State take the opportunity to introduce a common age of entitlement to travel schemes for everyone based on the age of 60?

Mr. Prescott: I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. As he will know, there have been a number of court judgments in Europe on the matter, and those judgments have not held against our differential at 60 and 65. It is therefore a matter of resources. It would cost about £65 million to meet his request. When considering expenditure, we have to make a judgment on priorities, and the 1p Liberal tax would not necessarily pay for a common age of entitlement.

Angela Smith: Many pensioners in my constituency have warmly welcomed the Government's decision on concessionary fares for older people—although, quite rightly, they still complain about the lack of bus services in many areas. However, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider extending the scheme to include young people in full-time education and those who are under 18, who still have to pay full fares?

Mr. Prescott: Those matters are affected by cost resource and priorities, which have to be determined. I note, however, that the Labour candidate for mayor of London has made a similar suggestion.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very keen to extend concessionary travel for older people, but how would establishing a common age for concessionary travel, which was the intention of the original question, help older people in many parts of the country where there is little or no public transport at all? Is it not important that the Deputy Prime Minister should consider the problems

faced by many elderly people who do not have their own cars and live in remote rural areas—such as some of the villages in my own constituency of Macclesfield?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, but under the Conservative Government there was a massive decline in public transport provision, particularly in rural areas. Our £170 million of rural grants has led to 1,800 new services in rural areas. It may not cover everywhere, but it is a major step forward. I suppose that I should also be grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the Manchester airport eastern link road, as he often does.

Ivory Trade

Mrs. Helen Brinton: What steps the Government are taking to secure the restoration of a ban on the international trade in ivory. [116156]

The Minister for the Environment(Mr. Michael Meacher): There can be no further international trade in ivory unless the 11th conference of parties to the convention on international trade in endangered species, which opens next week in Nairobi, agrees a specific proposal to permit that. The Government believe that any change to the conservation status of elephants under CITES would be premature. We are therefore urging all the proponents to withdraw their proposals on elephants. If they are not withdrawn, the UK, together with our European partners, will oppose all the proposals including those seeking further trade in ivory.

Mrs. Brinton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he, like me, seen the excellent article in The Mail on Sunday last week, entitled "Why killing elephants is again all the fashion"? It was about not just ivory, but a revival in trading in elephant skins. Will he assure me that the Government will do all they can at the talks in Nairobi later this week to support the position of Kenya and India, which want to ban that evil, wicked trade?

Mr. Meacher: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we do not want a return to the large-scale poaching and full-scale ivory trading that characterised the 1980s; but for all trading in ivory to be ended and for elephants to be uplifted to appendix 1 of CITES, two conditions must be met. The first is that there must be evidence that the limited, experimental, one-off trade has led to an increase in poaching. The evidence is confused and there is no convincing proof. Secondly, the numbers must justify such a move. Elephant numbers are not small, their distribution is not restricted and they are not in decline. In the three countries concerned with the trade, over the past 15 years elephant numbers have quadrupled in Botswana, gone up sixfold in Namibia and nearly doubled in Zimbabwe. We are concerned to prevent any increase in ivory trading. That is why we have required all parties to withdraw their proposals so that we can monitor the illegal killing of elephants and provide convincing evidence for further action.

Social Housing (Single Tenancy Agreement)

Ms Oona King: What plans he has to introduce a single tenancy agreement in the social housing sector. [116158]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): I invite my hon. Friend to stay and listen to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will be making in 10 minutes.

Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that kind invitation. I recognise that it might be a bit late to put in a bid for issues to be included in the housing Green Paper. However, does he agree that the introduction of a single tenancy would help to reassure council tenants and enhance their rights when they are offered transfers to community housing organisations, as those organisations are currently unable to offer secure tenancies?

Mr. Mullin: I am aware of the problem that has arisen in my hon. Friend's constituency, where some misinformation has been floating about. There is no practical difference between secure and assured tenancies apart from the right to buy, which is guaranteed under the transfer schemes. Some tenants have been misled on that. It is desirable in principle that there should be a single tenancy, but there are practical difficulties.

Housebuilding (Chelmsford)

Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on future housebuilding in the Chelmsford local authority area. [116159]

The Minister for Housing and Planning(Mr. Nick Raynsford): An illustrative breakdown of future housing provision within the south-east region, including an annual rate of provision for the county of Essex, was published for consultation with the proposed changes to the draft regional planning guidance on 27 March. Once finalised, it will be for the Essex county structure plan to determine the level of house building in the Chelmsford local plan area.

Mr. Burns: Will the Minister confirm that that fudge by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State means that there will be about 1,200 extra houses a year in Essex? Will he also confirm that his past statements on the Government's commitment to the green belt were sincere? If the answer is yes, what does he think of Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council's preferred option of building possibly 2,500 houses in greenbelt land in the village of Margaretting in the local authority area?

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The annual average for housebuilding in Essex under the existing south-east regional planning committee arrangement is 6,383 homes per year. The average number of homes built throughout the 1990s was 5,770, and the illustrative proposals that we sent out on 27 March, to which I have just referred, suggests that an

average of 5,420 should be built. Therefore, it is simply not true that we are imposing an increase on existing Serplan arrangements, or on current levels of building.

Mr. Burns: What about the green belt?

Mr. Raynsford: I turn now to the green belt, which the Government are committed to protecting and extending, and whose area we have increased by some 30,000 hectares. There is a presumption against development in the green belt, which will be overruled only in exceptional circumstances.
We have a quasi-judicial role in relation to individual planning inquiries, so the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment on a matter that might come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I reaffirm our commitment to the defence of the green belt.

Council Tax (Second Homes)

Mr. David Rendel: What plans he has to abolish the 50 per cent. reduction in council tax on second homes. [116160]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions(Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have no plans at present to abolish the council tax discount for second homes. Some respondents to our consultation last year on rural issues suggested ending the discount, and we are considering this along with many other proposals for tackling rural problems.

Mr. Rendel: Does not the Minister agree that giving local authorities the right to raise the council tax on second homes would do quite a lot to reduce the problems of overdevelopment across the south-east? Would not it also give young people wanting to move out of the parental home a better chance of obtaining affordable accommodation?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is being too simplistic. Sometimes there are good reasons for not raising council tax on empty properties, as such properties are empty for all sorts of reasons. Second homes come into that general category.
The issue is complex, and varies across the country. We are considering the matter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to contribute his thoughts to our deliberations.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are many different views on the matter across the country? People in north Norfolk are often unable to buy a house because others are coming into the area and buying second homes—those incomers include Members of Parliament. Their presence contributes to the local economy, but the negative feelings of the local community would be somewhat diminished if they were to pay the full council tax. I understand that my right hon. Friend may want to introduce a broader package


of changes to council tax, but will she assure my constituents that that particular change has not been ruled out?

Ms Armstrong: I have made it clear that the change has not been ruled out, but that it has not been ruled in either.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister may be aware that 600 new wooden chalet-type homes are being built in the Cotswold water park. The local Cotswold district council does not get the full benefit of the council tax on those homes, which are entirely second homes. Will the Minister consider giving local authorities a discretionary power to enable them to levy full council tax in certain circumstances?

Ms Armstrong: I have given the assurance that we are considering that.

Housing Revenue (Resource Accounting)

Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement about the move to resource accounting for housing revenue accounts and his plans to mitigate its effects on councils in negative subsidy. [116161]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): Our view has always been that transitional measures would be justified for councils in negative subsidy. We propose to introduce such measures from April next year, to coincide with the introduction of the major repairs allowance. We shall consult on the detail of the measures in due course.

Mr. Rammell: The Minister will be aware of the dramatic impact of this change on a number of local authorities, particularly new town authorities. Without mitigation, the change would involve a dramatic slashing of council services or a huge and unsustainable increase in the council tax. Will the Minister look carefully at the issue and, in particular, at the use of housing capital receipts for non-housing capital purposes which took place during the 1980s and which is the major cause of this problem in my local authority?

Mr. Mullin: I have possibly taken my hon. Friend by surprise by saying that we are proposing to introduce transitional measures from April next year. We are aware of the problem—I met a delegation of leaders of councils that are affected, and am due to meet my hon. Friend in due course. I look forward to discussing the details with him then.

Housing Green Paper

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. John Prescott): I am very pleased to announce to the House that today we are publishing the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All". This is the first comprehensive review of housing for 23 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Any search of the record will confirm that.
Housing is a basic requirement for everyone. Every member of the House will know from their postbag just how much housing matters. Decent housing gives people a stronger sense of security and identity. It strengthens communities and provides a better setting in which to raise families. It improves health, educational achievement and employment opportunities. It provides a long-term asset that can be passed on to future generations.
Despite the fact that the majority of people are satisfied with their housing, there are still too many problems. The previous Government's neglect made those problems worse. I inherited the worst repossession crisis ever, with more than 1 million homes repossessed or in negative equity, and a £19 billion backlog of repair and modernisation work in council housing. Despite Britain's mild winters, we have one of the worst records of winter deaths in Europe. Whole communities have been abandoned in ghettos of deprivation, and the number of homeless people and those sleeping rough has doubled.
Nothing in the Opposition's latest policies suggests that they have learned any lessons. Their proposals have little to do with solving problems and nothing to do with common sense. In fact, to coin a phrase, they are all mouth and no action.
We have made an early start to put things right. [Interruption.] This is what action is. We have released £5 billion of capital receipts to renovate 2 million homes. We are implementing the Egan report on raising standards in construction and are tackling the problem of cowboy builders.
Our economic policies have delivered stability, so that people can afford their own home. We have announced measures to make it easier for people to buy and sell their home. Our initiatives have reduced the number of rough sleepers by 10 per cent. These are a few of the things that we have done.
From this week, we are giving tenants a greater say in how their homes are managed. This week, the best value regime starts to ensure better services to tenants. A new housing inspectorate will ensure high standards.
The Green Paper on housing is a key part of our wider ambition to support sustainable communities. It shows how our existing initiatives fit into an overall strategy. It also sets out a range of proposals.
Over the coming weeks and months, I shall be launching the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, the urban White Paper and the rural White Paper. The housing Green Paper, together with those documents, is a key part of our strategy to build sustainable communities in this country.
The Green Paper is a consultation document. We are seeking responses by the end of July, but we would also welcome earlier reactions to inform decisions in the next

three-year spending review. We shall be looking to press ahead with our housing agenda in the autumn, although clearly some of our proposals will require legislation.
The Green Paper is about quality and choice. We want to raise the quality of homes everywhere, whether they are owned by individuals or provided by landlords. We want to extend choice, so that there is more choice for tenants and for those wanting to buy their own home.
I will start with the greenest part of the Green Paper—that dealing with housing benefit and rents. Everyone recognises that housing benefit is in need of reform. It has helped distort the structure of rents and trap people in unemployment. It is difficult to understand and complex to administer. I am sure that every Member of Parliament knows that to be so from dealing with constituents.
Most people who receive housing benefit are of working age, although 41 per cent. are over 60. We are already helping those moving into work by arranging to pay benefit automatically for the first four weeks in employment, but we want a more efficient service for all who receive benefit. In the short term, we propose improvements such as computerising mail between different benefits offices. That will save the postage of 20 million pieces of paper and speed up the process.
We are also tackling fraud and error. The Green Paper proposes further options, such as a single national fraud hotline service.

Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, a hotline!

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be not too concerned about fraud.
In the longer term, we want to examine the case for reforming housing benefit to give tenants greater choice over where they live, but that will require reform of rent structures. There is a consensus that council and housing association rents are a mess. We want to build a new consensus on the way forward.

Mr. Forth: What does that mean?

Mr. Prescott: It means reaching agreement about commonsense proposals.
The Green Paper offers a range of options for restructuring rents. We believe that the key principles should be comparable rents for comparable properties and rents that take account of the size and quality of the homes on offer. I can give a clear commitment that, whatever changes we introduce, we shall maintain rents in the social sector at an affordable level—below market rents. I also make it absolutely clear that pensioners on housing benefit will not be affected by any proposals to reform housing benefit.
Home ownership has increased dramatically over the past few decades, owing partly to the right-to-buy programme introduced by the previous Administration, under which 1.3 million people bought their own homes. I have already referred to our initiative to make the home buying and selling process easier. We are also taking action to help first-time buyers.
We are announcing a new starter home initiative to help key workers, such as nurses and teachers and first-time buyers on modest incomes. The initiative will help them


to buy their own homes in areas where housing is costly, in the town or in the country. We will invite proposals from housing associations and others. Ideas could involve interest-free loans, development grants or other innovative approaches.
We are also giving new help to unemployed home owners who are moving back into work. We are helping them to pay mortgage interest for the first four weeks after they start a new job. Some home owners, especially the elderly, are unable to maintain and modernise their property. We propose a range of new options to help more people to make essential repairs.
The private rented sector provides homes for more than 2 million households. Most private landlords are professional and responsible, but a minority of bad landlords gives the whole sector a bad name. Our proposals include helping landlords to improve their expertise and standards. We intend to make sure that unscrupulous landlords who neglect their responsibilities do not profit from housing benefit. We also intend to give local authorities a selective power to license private landlords where bad landlords and bad tenants—sometimes in collusion—are destabilising the local community.
Social housing has been at the foundation of millions of people's lives for decades. The previous Government viewed council housing as little more than an embarrassment. Their neglect of investment in social housing created misery for millions of people and deprivation for whole communities. In the Tory vision, there were two nations—home owners and those who were left behind in areas of deprivation.
We must ask why 25 per cent. of crime is concentrated in 10 per cent. of communities. The Government believe that we should have a greater mix of social housing and owner-occupied housing. People should have a real choice between buying a home and renting without a sense of stigma or snobbery. In the Green Paper, we propose to improve the quality of social housing, housing management, and lettings.
Too often in the past, social landlords have offered people a home on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That system has failed: it often concentrates the poorest people in the poorest properties. We must design a lettings system for the 21st century if we are to support sustainable communities. We propose to give new applicants and existing tenants more say in choosing where they live. In the Green Paper, we propose pilot schemes across the country to test new approaches that put the tenant first.
The growth of homelessness over the past two decades is completely unacceptable. The previous Government took away rights from homeless people and made it harder for local councils to help them. In our election manifesto we promised to improve the safety net for those who are homeless through no fault of their own. Our proposals will ensure that homeless people are given the support that they need while they seek more permanent housing along with others in housing need on the waiting list.
In addition, we propose to extend the safety net to a wider group of homeless people, such as young people aged 16 and 17—that measure is not before time—and those who are vulnerable because they are leaving care and other institutions. Those are the people most at risk

of ending up on the streets without a home and without hope. Our commitment is to end the scourge of people sleeping rough. We shall also ensure that local authorities work with other agencies to prevent people from becoming homeless in the future.
The House should recognise the crucial role played by local authorities in the past in providing good homes. Over the past 100 years councils have met the housing needs of millions of people who otherwise would have been left in private sector slums. The private sector would not have met that need. Local authorities tackled the slums and the squalor and rebuilt our communities.
Local authorities are still well placed to play a dynamic role. In our Green Paper we are proposing a stronger, more forward-looking and strategic role for local authorities, in which they will identify and address housing needs across all housing in their area, in the public and private sectors.
The past 20 years have seen massive disinvestment in council housing. In our Green Paper, we set out a range of approaches to investment. We aim for a step change to ensure that all social housing is of a decent standard within 10 years. That will give us a decade to overcome the mountainous £19 billion backlog of repairs and modernisation left by the previous Government.
Stock transfer began in 1988, under the previous Administration. Since then, more than 400,000 homes have been transferred to registered social landlords, mainly housing associations. Stock transfer will continue to be the preferred approach for many authorities and their tenants, provided of course that they vote for it. We shall support the transfer of up to 200,000 homes each year from local authorities to registered social landlords. That is a matter of choice; it is not a target. We will make provision for that, but only where local authorities propose it and tenants vote for it.
A number of local authorities have asked to use the private finance initiative to increase private sector investment while maintaining ownership of their stock. We are piloting eight pathfinder schemes to find out how that approach can work best.
Some have suggested that stock transfer means the end of the local authority as landlord, and the end of the council house. We believe that there is a continuing role for council housing. Indeed, today I am announcing a new option for investment in local authority stock. Local authorities will be given new borrowing powers to invest in their housing and retain full ownership where they put their housing management in arms-length companies and demonstrate an excellent record of management through best-value inspection. There is therefore a good future for the council house.
The housing system that we inherited from the previous Government was fraught with difficulties: stigmatised social housing; a £19 billion backlog of repairs and improvements; a housing benefit system spiralling out of control; record repossessions; and a lack of choice and flexibility.
The proposals in our Green Paper can set about repairing Britain's poorest quality homes, helping first-time buyers and key workers, moving towards a fairer balance in rents and improving services. We are working hard for Britain's hard-working families. We propose help for home owners and the private sector, and we are not ashamed of that. We propose investment and


modernisation in social housing. A decent home is a measure of a civilised society. All in all, our proposals mean better quality, more choice and more opportunity. The system will be based not on stigma and snobbery, but on social justice, ensuring that everyone in Britain has the chance of a decent home.

Mr. Archie Norman: Once again, we have the familiar pattern of events surrounding one of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcements of policy failure. First, we read about it in the newspapers over the weekend and on Monday; then one of his Ministers appears on the "Today" programme, and then the Deputy Prime Minister appears in the House, claiming that the leaks are unauthorised and nothing to do with him.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall what he said after his statement on rail safety on 22 February? He said:
I ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that I did not brief on that report. I should make it clear that that is not my style; I do not play that way.—[Official Report, 22 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1378.]
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recall what he said before his statement on housing in the south-east? He said:
I regret and denounce the leaks, as I have said before in the House, and I am doing all I can to prevent them.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 863.]
Can he confirm that he did all he could on this occasion, or is it that, as usual, circumstances are beyond his control?
There are aspects of the Green Paper that we welcome: for example, the proposals for shared ownership—a Conservative proposal—and the aspirations to which the Deputy Prime Minister referred to improve social housing in Britain. I remind the House, however, that the Deputy Prime Minister came to power promising to reduce homelessness, to improve the quality of public housing stock, to cut benefit fraud and to provide more social housing. Can there be a more explicit or embarrassing example of all mouth and no delivery?
Under the Government, homelessness has risen, not fallen, by 3,000. Both capital and revenue spending on public housing has fallen. Spending on urban regeneration is lower than under the last Conservative Government. Fewer social houses, not more, are being built. There is an estimated £20 billion backlog of housing repairs. Housing benefit fraud is estimated to be at £2 billion and rising, with only a pathetic 700 successful prosecutions last year.
The Deputy Prime Minister has now confirmed in his statement that council and housing association rents are a mess after three years. Is he not embarrassed? [Interruption.] Is he not embarrassed that, after three years in government and one year before he retires to his RMT-owned flat in Clapham, all he can produce is a Green Paper for consultation? Is it not a splendid irony that it is the Deputy Prime Minister, the self-appointed guardian of the old left, who should end up starved of Treasury funding and presiding over plans finally to abolish council housing in Britain?
The Green Paper is a long shopping list of ideas for consultation. The question that the House is entitled to ask is: how much of that has been costed? Who will pay? When will the Deputy Prime Minister deliver and what will he deliver? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear these important exchanges.

Mr. Norman: How will the Deputy Prime Minister's widely trailed mortgage subsidies, which have been proposed in the very week that MIRAS is abolished, be funded? How much will they cost and has he agreed them with the Treasury? Is that proposal not more than a little divisive? How will the Deputy Prime Minister explain who will receive the subsidies? Is it right that a nurse in the south-east can get a home loan, but that a nurse or hospital cleaner in the north-west cannot?
Are not the Deputy Prime Minister's new proposals to make local authorities shareholders in arms-length companies just a muddled way of getting around the Treasury and of enabling councils to borrow money? Has he cleared it with the Treasury? What will it do for tenants that bulk transfers to housing associations cannot do better? Is it not the housing equivalent of the air traffic control fiasco: the worst of all possible options? Is not tinkering with the priorities for places in housing lists a poor substitute for reducing growing waiting lists in the first place?
How will hard-working families feel about being queue-jumped by released prisoners? Is that another example of a Labour Government penalising those who work hard and who do the right thing for society and for their families?
Why is it that, after three years of a Labour Government, five Labour councils have the worst record on empty council housing in Britain? One is Kingston upon Hull—the Deputy Prime Minister's own constituency. When will he deliver on any of his earlier manifesto commitments? These are basic facts. Housing investment has fallen by more than 10 per cent. since 1997. When will he increase it so that it will again reach the levels delivered by the previous Conservative Government, which he chose to deride in his statement? When will he increase the number of social houses built—which has fallen by a third since 1996, not risen—so that it will again reach the levels delivered by a Conservative Government at the end of our time in office?
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it. In conclusion, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he is still asking questions, not providing answers, after three years in government? Is not the bottom line the fact that housing policy is being sacrificed to a turf war between him and the Treasury? The Treasury has won and the Green Paper is the surrender document. Is there a single item in the consultation document that will deliver anything in the lifetime of the Government? Does it seriously pass the Kilfoyle test? On housing, is not the bitter truth that the Deputy Prime Minister will go down in history as not only a new Labour failure, but an old Labour failure as well?

Mr. Prescott: Another impressive performance! May I put the record straight on one fact? If one looks at the history of local authorities, of Labour government and of the building of council housing in this country, our record stands clear against that of Conservative Administrations. I well recall that, after a Labour Government built the massive housing estates after the war, a Tory Government were returned and brought in what were called the Macmillan houses, and they achieved 300,000 by


reducing the size and the quality of houses. Macmillan houses, such as those in my constituency, are known as ones where people bring the rubbish through the front room to take it to the dust cart. That is the reality of what Tories have done. They have never been concerned about the quality of social housing—the evidence has always been clear.
Let me address a number of points. With regard to leaks and the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), I can only assume, and the House might accept, that if I had leaked the statement I would hardly have said that I would give priority to prisoners. That would not be the leak that I should have wanted to give to the press, but I might say that to pick on that point—[Interruption.] I would hardly do that—there are more positive things to say. With regard to the prejudice here and the extent of homelessness, let me make it clear that a third of homeless people have been in care. We have some responsibility to provide them with homes. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman may well know, some might be Tory Members of Parliament coming out of prison to whom we would want to give some consideration.
With regard to the personal matter, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I strongly resent any implications that I did wrong concerning rents and my flat. I have done what is proper—[Interruption.] I trust that the House will listen. I have done what is proper and immediately referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner to ask for advice. This rent is covered by legislation passed by a previous Tory Government. In those circumstances, it would be better if the House would at least accord me the right to wait for the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner as to whether any offence has occurred. Indeed, Members should not simply rely on press reports. Everyone should at least expect that, and I certainly expect it from the hon. Gentleman. I personally do not want to get involved in a slanging match on those matters; I make the fair point—[interruption.]—I am responding to the point made by the Opposition spokesman.
In relation to the hon. Gentleman's comments on houses, it is a bit much for an Opposition spokesman to talk about the disinvestment that took place in the social housing stock. We estimate that as about £19 billion. That occurred because the policy of the previous Tory Administration was to sell housing, while denying councils the use of the £5 billion in their accounts to improve their properties. That was especially obscene. We corrected that injustice immediately. Let us compare our investment to that of the previous Government, which was referred to in the press reports. From 1991 to the last year of their administration in 1997, under the Treasury commitments made by the Conservative Chancellor, capital investment was halved. With the £5 billion, we have doubled it since we came into office. That is the reality.
The Conservatives halved investment through that period—the figures are clear. We have doubled it. We have changed direction because we are investing in social housing, as we are committed to do. Today, we are talking about the quality of housing. That is the difference between us.
The policy on MIRAS was not started by us. The reduction of MIRAS and of the payments for the subsidy of mortgages for private housing were initiated by the previous Administration. Both sides of the House agreed that MIRAS had affected house prices and that it should be abolished. The former Chancellor wanted to abolish it in one go. The objective has now been achieved by both Labour and Conservative Governments. We felt that MIRAS unfairly influenced the price of houses. I believe that there was agreement on that across the House.
On local borrowing and my influence on the Treasury, I am accused, on the one hand, of having no influence with the Treasury and, on the other, of getting something from the Treasury that I should not have received. What I achieved for local authorities was the right to borrow.
Local authorities were discriminated against. Housing associations were able to borrow against their rents and assets. It was unfair that local authority tenants should be discriminated against because local authorities were not allowed to raise resources against their assets and the income stream to improve the quality of their housing. I have removed that discrimination. I have offered local authorities the opportunity to have the same advantage. That is right. I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in that matter.
That opportunity is a major and most welcome change. It will be given to those local authorities that have good management standards, achieve best value and can get on with providing good council housing. The Green Paper is a major step towards a more comprehensive approach to housing. I shall not deal with any more of the questions put by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, as they were wholly irrelevant.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Frank Dobson.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Frank Dobson: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's Green Paper and its recognition of the problems in London, where vital workers, such as nurses and teachers, are being priced out of the city because of the rise in housing costs? I thank him for adopting my suggestion that interest-free and cheap loans for nurses and teachers would be helpful. I urge him to proceed with those proposals as quickly as possible because a large number of hard-working people in London are under severe pressure. We need those teachers and nurses; we cannot afford to lose them because they are being driven out by housing costs.

Mr. Prescott: Like other hon. Members, I welcome my right hon. Friend to our proceedings today. I am delighted to support his election campaign. I also congratulate him on the campaign he led while he was Secretary of State for Health. That should be properly recorded. I held many discussions with him—as did many of my hon. Friends—on the new starter home initiative. His concern was especially for teachers and nurses, although I know that the issue also became important in relation to the police.
Perhaps I could point out to my right hon. Friend that I have read the South London Press, as one tends to do when one has nothing has else to read—I hope that I do not get into trouble with the South London Press. In an article dated 31 March, the newspaper quotes someone


complaining about the sale of homes set aside for police officers and nurses in London and it accuses the past Administration of selling off police section houses and
police estates and…good nursing accommodation.
That seems to be a powerful argument, particularly when it comes from the Tory party's candidate for the mayoral election, Mr. Steven Norris.

Mr. Don Foster: Why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is with us is, I suppose, beyond our Ken. However, we are delighted to see him here.
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have advance notice of his statement. We acknowledge that the Green Paper is a consultation document and we look forward to participating in the discussions that will follow. We welcome much that is in the document: the proposals for a more flexible housing market; the speeding up of house sales; the wider definition of homelessness, which is long overdue; and the promise of action on leasehold reform.
However, we have concerns on three issues. First, although it is important to offer new powers and responsibilities to local councils, giving them those powers and responsibilities without the promise of additional resources is meaningless. They must be told how they will fund new loans, how they will have the money for increased discretionary grants and how they will make payments to home improvement agencies. The proposals will be useless unless they receive the promise of additional funding.
Secondly, I simply fail to understand why, apart from the few headline-grabbing proposals, any real reform of housing benefit has been kicked into the long grass. The Government promised us that they would take tough decisions, but on this issue, at least, they appear to have chickened out.
Thirdly, why is the Deputy Prime Minister so totally besotted with stock housing transfer? Why, in the latest proposals, will he allow councils to borrow additional money only if they are prepared to privatise their housing management systems? Surely there should be a level playing field in which housing associations and councils can borrow money on equal terms. Tenants could then choose. At present, they can choose anything that they like so long as they say yes to transfer. That is like having a pistol put to their heads.

Mr. Prescott: I am most grateful for the warm support that the hon. Gentleman gave to the Green Paper. I hope that it will start a debate and achieve the consensus that we want. Resolving the problems will take longer than the term of any one Government. There is a desperate desire to reach consensus; the problems of housing finance, and particularly housing benefit, mean that one must achieve considerable agreement. We will achieve nothing if Governments continually seek to change policy. On housing benefits and rents, we must take a long-term view; anyone considering the problem knows that that is true. By keeping the Green Paper green, by not coming to conclusions and by holding discussions, I hope that I am able to achieve such consensus.
That does not mean that we are not doing anything. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has done much in the Department of Social Security to

deal with such matters. As I said earlier, it is important that we get a proper balance to deal with fraud and to improve administration. However, the real problem is with structural reform. People should recognise that and realise that it is a long-term problem involving—let us make no mistake about it—many political difficulties. We have started to make changes and we look forward to considerable debate and discussion on them.
On local authorities and stock housing, I cannot have made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman—even though I thought that I had. Ownership of the stock remains with the local authority; it is not passed over as with other stock transfers. He should bear in mind that local authorities have pushed us to take a different approach so that they can have access to resources to improve the quality of their stock after such massive disinvestment has taken place. In some cases, they are stock transfers, which were offered by the previous Administration in 1988, and PFIs have been pushed by some local authorities. I have opened a new possibility. Local authorities will keep the ownership of the assets—it is not privatisation—and they will borrow against the income and the assets.
In some local authorities—Burnley is one—the overhanging debt is too great compared with the value of the houses to obtain a private finance arrangement. We are making some changes to deal with such cases. I am offering another option—giving local authorities another opportunity. As for resources, the on-going spending review will measure the sums going into housing. A combination of a new source of borrowing and new resources resulting from the spending review will deal with the housing changes.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the best statement on housing since I was Minister in charge of housing in the last Labour Government. After that time, the Conservatives ended the council house building programme and caused appalling problems for owner-occupiers. My right hon. Friend is putting that right. I especially congratulate him on dealing with collusive fraud between private landlords and their tenants, which, in inner city areas such as my constituency, is a stain on housing finance.
I thank my right hon. Friend for pioneering pilot schemes and suggest that the Gorton division of Manchester would be a good place to run one. I have received strong representations from many constituents living in local authority estates saying that they want to have the right to remain council house tenants. Despite all the shortcomings that may affect council house management, council housing is accountable in a way that even Housing Corporation housing is not. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend can provide assurances for me to take back to Manchester.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's warm support: his record as a Minister in the Department of the Environment and in housing matters is so considerable that I should be grateful to leave with a similar reputation—I am working on it.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will make a bid for his area to host a pilot scheme and that he will be a powerful advocate for it. He makes an important point about tenants' rights. The first housing action trust introduced by the previous Administration was in my


constituency. Those who remember the debates at that time will know that the Tories took the view that tenants should have no say. However, they found that no one would take up the scheme, so when the first one was introduced in the Hull area, tenants had the right to vote; they all voted to return to local authority control.
We think that tenants' rights are important: tenants should have considerable influence over where they live, how they live and what happens to them. That is why we shall ensure that there is accountability and that none of the schemes will be introduced without tenants' agreement.

Mr. Eric Pickles: In chapter 11 of the Green Paper, the Deputy Prime Minister lays down seven commitments on housing benefit, all of which fall well short of its fundamental reform. Is he aware that the list bears an uncanny resemblance to a list published in Housing Today, which stated that the measures had been considered by the Government a year ago, but had been dismissed as inadequate tinkering on the fringe? How has the passage of a year turned measures that were dismissed as tinkering on the fringe into fundamental reforms of housing benefit? Is not the truth that the wheels have fallen off welfare reform?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a leak and on reports of the Government's views. We do not think that our measures constitute tinkering; they make a contribution to the discussion that we shall have to have about housing benefit, and to radical change. The previous Administration introduced housing benefit and watched it increase from £2 billion to £11 billion, yet they did little to check fraud. It is important that we deal with fraud, but issues of administration, how to deal with people, how to apply the benefit and rent structure are all fundamental.
I believe that there will be fundamental reforms, once agreement is reached, but I do not kid myself that there is not a long and controversial road to be trod before we achieve that. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is tinkering, I can live with that, but I think that the measures contribute to radical change.

Mr. Clive Soley: May I express my delight that my right hon. Friend has put quality and affordability back at the top of the housing agenda, after they were removed by the Conservative party for all those years? Will he make sure that we keep mobility up there as a major priority? People want to choose the area in which they live, and they want to choose whether to rent or buy, and to interchange between the rented and purchase sectors at different stages of their life, as events dictate. I welcome the Green Paper immensely and I hope that my right hon. Friend carries it forward.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his words of support. I well remember when he was the shadow spokesman on housing, and the emphasis that he placed on mobility and quality. However, he does himself less than justice. There is one aspect of my statement today that he should especially welcome. He was the man who made a statement, as I did supporting him, suggesting that

local authorities should have the right to borrow against their assets and to use their income stream to improve quality and choice in housing. He got a terrible press, and a great deal of reaction from some on our side. I am delighted to say that what I announced today has long been advocated by my hon. Friend.

Mr. John Bercow: What is the implication of the Secretary of State's borrowing proposal for the level of interest repayments on local authority debt?

Mr. Prescott: All our proposals, particularly in respect of borrowing requirements, depend on how far we advance. The extent of the borrowing will determine the interest rate. Once we establish that, we will be able to make a judgment. That will be taken into account when we allocate the resources available for borrowing.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What improvement does my right hon. Friend expect in inner London housing as a result of the Green Paper? Although many would welcome the recognition of the need for homes for nurses, teachers and police staff, I hope that there will also be a recognition of the need for homes for people who are on a housing waiting list and who have no possibility whatever of renting privately or buying. For them, the only future is to move out. Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a need for local authorities to be able to buy or build, in order to alleviate the terrible housing stress and the overcrowding in which many inner-city children are growing up in London?

Mr. Prescott: No one can doubt my hon. Friend's analysis of the difficulties of housing in London. Most of us, who come from various parts of the United Kingdom, know that to be true. There are real difficulties. However, there are still problems with empty homes, even in his constituency. Unfortunately, that is often a result of inadequate resources being allocated to maintain standards. It should be recognised that no local authority likes to have empty houses; it is income lost. I am told that even in Tunbridge Wells there has been a 50 per cent. increase in empty houses. I do not know why that should be so—perhaps it has happened since the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was elected or his constituents heard him at the Dispatch Box.
There are serious housing problems, but we are moving to help. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the key worker proposal. We are providing extra resources, and the £5 billion has had its effect in the London area. The waiting list remains a problem. Although housing is still the responsibility of central Government, I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is elected as London mayor, we will get together. He will have responsibility for planning, we will have responsibility for housing, and we will see what we can do together to improve the situation in London.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the transfer of 200,000 houses a year. The Local Government Bill contains compelling incentives for the continuation of the transfer of existing housing stock to social landlords. Is it the


Government's intention to force councils to continue, even when it is not financially viable for them to do so? We have heard precious little about resources today.

Mr. Prescott: No, local authorities will not be forced to transfer houses. It is optional for them, and they must secure the agreement of the tenants, so there are two checks on whether they go along that road. The figure of 200,000 is not a target that we expect them to meet. We are allocating expenditure to allow them to deal with the transfer of up to 200,000 houses.
I have shown that since we came to office, we have doubled the resources available, and I hope for more resources from the spending review. The money that we have put in and the changes that we are making will considerably improve housing and will ensure that many of the decisions must be agreed between the local authority and the tenants.

Ms Karen Buck: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a wide-ranging and genuinely exciting set of housing options? I was particularly pleased to hear him refer to changes in the allocation procedure, which will introduce choice and flexibility to people who are often totally disempowered by the present process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the investment in additional social housing is critical, particularly in London, where we currently house 40,000 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Can we build on the success of the rough sleepers initiative, so that under a Labour Government we will end the scandal of children growing up in bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend's view is consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about children and homelessness. I very much agree with her remarks about tenants having choice. Most of us who have dealt with the points system with our various councils understand it to be fair, but it is discriminatory. It leaves many people dissatisfied with the system. We are trying to improve choice so that the tenant feels part of the system and not that he is being told to take it or leave it, which has undermined a great deal of public housing.
I take my hon. Friend's point that the amount of investment in social housing in London is critical. Apart from the provision of housing, we look for social housing and mixed development in new development sites. I am delighted that 20 per cent. of the millennium village concept that we are developing at Greenwich will be affordable housing.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Deputy Prime Minister say a little more about housing benefit reform, into which a Select Committee is conducting a comprehensive inquiry? He said that this reform is the greenest part of his statement. When does he expect to come to a conclusion on the matter? He must accept that the present system distorts the market, as he has said so. I detected the hand of 10 Downing street in the lauding of the market heard in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is he prepared to consider fundamental reforms such as giving help to tenants so that they can shop around

rather than giving help and subsidies direct to the landlord? These will be fundamental reforms, but we need decisions quite soon.

Mr. Prescott: Many of the proposals in the Green Paper cover some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Anyone who has had to consider housing benefit and structural rents will realise that they raise complex issues. I have suggested before that, if we make adjustments to rents and housing benefit and to all the issues that would flow from that, there would be gainers and losers. That is my answer to those who ask, "How long will it take?" We must ensure that the period of transition during which change is introduced will be fair to all concerned. Fundamental changes will not come overnight. We want consensus. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman's proposals are mentioned in the Green Paper.

Ms Glenda Jackson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on approaching housing, or rather the lack of it, in such an imaginative and practical way? I congratulate him also on acknowledging that housing, be it public or private, is a national asset and that the nation must work to maintain it. At the same time, he has restated firmly and comprehensively Labour's commitment to social housing.
In central London, there is an increasing problem in the private sector, where exploitative landlords are increasing their rents year on year. Elderly and frail people, whose incomings are frozen, see their outgoings increasing every year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will address this issue with some speed. I follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in making a plea for a pilot private finance initiative for the Chalcot estate in my constituency.

Mr. Prescott: I hear what my hon. Friend says about special pleading. Presumably there must be proposed measures in the Green Paper that are welcome, and I am delighted that that is so. I wish my hon. Friend good luck with the application.
I think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that housing is a national asset. We must have housing policies. Governments have been actively involved in the housing programme, with a commitment especially to social housing. However, there is clearly a difference between the parties in the priorities that we deploy in dealing with social housing, as we have seen today.
There is a major problem with the private sector and exploitative landlords. There are very good landlords but there are also bad ones, who get a great deal of publicity. We want to deal with them because we do not think that they are fair. As is mentioned in the Green Paper, sometimes bad landlords act in collusion with tenants. That undermines good will and good policy, and in some cases it is clearly fraudulent and criminal. We shall take whatever action we can to prevent it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that some of the worst areas in terms of the housing affordability gap are those where there is a disproportionate number of second homes that create an artificial market, such as Cornwall and the lake


district, where there are ghost villages in winter and where it is entirely uneconomic for the people to whom he has referred to buy or rent at the prices that prevail? May I ask him to review, as part of the consultation process, the opportunities that he can give local authorities to tackle the problem?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. There are difficulties. We have already made a start on 50 per cent. of the empty homes in our towns and cities. My colleague said at Question Time that we are considering the point that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has made.
The provision of housing in rural areas is an important issue. I recently visited one of the dale areas. A farmer complained that he wanted to convert a farm into two or three houses for local residents but was prevented by the planning authority's requirements, simply because he apparently said—I do not know whether it is true—that people would live in the houses and hang their washing on the line, and that a road would have to built. We must change such attitudes, because some rural areas as well as some urban areas suffer genuine problems. Housing is equally important in rural and urban areas.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome the Green Paper that my right hon. Friend introduced this afternoon. I represent a constituency that contains 3,000 older empty terraced houses, and I urge my right hon. Friend to acknowledge the wide variation of housing problems in various parts of the country. We must ensure that our policy is flexible. I also urge him to press the Treasury to look again at reducing VAT on housing repairs and renovation, because that would do a lot for areas with older housing stock, which cannot be renovated because people cannot afford it.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I acknowledge the problem of the variation in housing in all our cities. I can recall the housing to which my hon. Friend refers from my visits to Burnley. The Green Paper tries to deal with all the different sorts of properties. Our policy is about homes for all, whether in the public or the private sector.
My hon. Friend's second point, about VAT, was a recommendation of Lord Rogers. We have considered whether the fiscal framework can assist in such programmes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget statement that he wants to consider the way in which the fiscal framework can help. The matter is not a complete write-off; we are continuing to consider it. I bear in mind Lord Rogers' recommendations in his urban regeneration report, which I commissioned.
My hon. Friend made two points; he could have made a third. We have agreed a settlement on overhanging debt to help Burnley to tackle its housing problems.

Mr. Pike: Thank you.

Ms Margaret Moran: As a former housing association director and chair of a housing committee, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to end the illogical investment rules for housing

associations and local authorities. It gives local authorities a genuine opportunity to use investment to tackle housing need in their areas.
What plans has my right hon. Friend to deal with the problem of the differences in rents between housing associations and local authorities and between regions? Often, similar properties have widely varying rents regardless of their condition. How does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle that and thus facilitate the provision of more choice for our tenants and residents, and end the scandal of the massive increases in council and housing association rents which happened under the previous Government?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her supportive remarks. I readily acknowledge her active part in housing. As she said, the local authority changes should have happened a long time ago. I am delighted to end that discrimination and place faith in local authorities to begin to build good quality houses in the public sector.
My hon. Friend's other important point is covered in the Green Paper. It is amazing to consider the different rent structures not only between local authorities and housing corporations but for the same sort of house in different local authority areas. The differences between regions are a genuine problem. We acknowledge that there must be a social rent that is below the market rent, but we need to establish uniform principles that apply to the rent structure. Tackling that would have consequential effects on housing benefit and on the role of housing finance to which we are committed in the Green Paper.

Ms Oona King: I too welcome the Green Paper and the way in which it moves housing further up the agenda. Did the Deputy Prime Minister share some of my incredulity when listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on the key workers scheme? He suggested that he could not perceive a difference between people in different parts of the country. However, in the north of England, nurses who earn £14,000 may be able to buy a four-bedroomed terraced house for £10,000. Meanwhile, a house in Tower Hamlets in my constituency has just gone for £500,000.
In the light of that, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that help will also go to other vital workers, such as hospital porters, cleaners and waste collectors, so that people living in areas with high increases in house prices get a chance to have a decent house and a roof over their head?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her warm words of support. She makes a powerful point about key workers. The proposal covers not only those workers whom I have mentioned, but people who are in difficult circumstances in areas of high-cost housing, which are not necessarily limited to London and the south-east. There are various key workers, such as hospital porters, nurses and teachers. We will leave local authorities and the appropriate bodies to make a judgment. We must clearly address that problem.
Key workers are an essential part of the programme; important workers need housing. However, I shall resist saying what I was going to add.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall resist calling any more questions.

Health Care Standards for Elderly Persons

Mr. Paul Marsden: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to prohibit the refusal or delay of treatment or the provision of an inferior standard of care on the basis of age and to establish an inquiry into the extent of age discrimination in the provision of health services.
I am presenting the Bill to highlight the national problem of age discrimination in health services, including dental services, and to urge the Government to set up a national inquiry to investigate the massive evidence of discrimination and prejudice against the elderly. The Bill is backed by Age Concern, and has the wholehearted support of Help the Aged. I should like to thank everyone in those organisations for their dedication and commitment to the elderly. I should particularly like to thank Julia Lueginger and Caroline Gilchrist of Age Concern for their terrific support and expertise in helping to produce the Bill.
It is an open secret that elderly people are vulnerable and do not receive the same quality of treatment as younger people. They may not be as physically active as younger people, and may not be able to communicate as well. There is clearly prejudice at work, because the elderly do not always receive the respect that they deserve.
I am not saying that the national health service is, per se, discriminatory against the elderly—it is not. Thousands of caring auxiliaries, nurses, doctors and consultants fight day in and day out to give the best possible care and treatment to the elderly. I salute them, as I know that they work under great pressure. I have seen that at first hand, and I am amazed at how well they cope. Many older people have said that they have received outstanding care, but worryingly the multitude of evidence that has been sent to Age Concern shows that there is a case to answer.
The country was delighted with the Chancellor's announcement in the Budget of £2 billion of extra money this financial year, with a promise to drive up health spending towards the European Union average. That is long overdue, and I warmly welcome it. However, it must go hand in hand with more modernisation and an improvement in standards. I want measures to stamp out discrimination against the elderly, and a real commitment to improving health care standards for older people.
I appreciate the fact that the Government will publish later this year a national service framework for older people. However, I believe that an inquiry is still needed to establish the size of the problem, and to send a strong signal to pensioners that the Government are listening to them. It is not about better service decisions in the future, but about stamping out discrimination now.
This weekend, The Sunday Times reported the allegations of a junior doctor, Rita Pal, who came across examples of discrimination because of the age of the patient. I understand that a dossier containing the allegations has been sent to the General Medical Council. Two weeks earlier, an undercover Sunday Times reporter had found other cases of mistreatment of the elderly.
Since launching its campaign, Age Concern has been inundated with hundreds of detailed accounts of elderly people receiving poor to appalling treatment. Its report, "Turning your back on us", graphically illustrates the point. Four new cases provide examples of the continuing discrimination experienced by the elderly and their relatives.
The first case concerns an elderly lady from London. Her daughter reports that she suffered initially from a chest infection; however, when the daughter visited her in hospital, she found new bruises on her body. She also found that her mother sometimes received no assistance with feeding, that pills were left by her bedside, and that an oxygen tube was not plugged in. That elderly lady died.
The second case, in Nottingham, involves an 84-year-old lady who, at 75, was told by her GP that she was suffering from a build-up of cholesterol. However, she was allegedly told that the cut-off age for cholesterol treatment was 70. She never received the treatment on the NHS.
The third case is that of an elderly lady from Berkshire, who was admitted to hospital for a routine operation and, unfortunately, was then rushed into intensive care. It is alleged that she was moved out of intensive care early to make way for a 30-year-old woman. The elderly lady subsequently died.
The fourth case concerns an 81-year-old lady from Darlington, who suffered for seven months owing to a misdiagnosis by a GP and the local hospital. Doctors did not believe her desperate cries of constant pain, which they put down to arthritis and emotional distress. In fact, it was not all in her head: it turned out to be cancer.
Those cases and many more are subject to internal complaints procedures and ombudsman reviews. Each case on its own could be dismissed as an isolated one, but the sheer weight of cases adds up to something far more serious. There is clearly discrimination against older people in parts of the NHS, although it is not limited to the NHS; I would say that the problem exists throughout today's society.
We would rightly never stand for discrimination against people because of the colour of their skin, their sex or their sexuality. I fear that a lack of respect for older people is becoming endemic across society. Medical decisions should be made solely on a basis of clinical need. I believe that, as well as providing decent, fair standards of health care based on clinical need, we should ensure that we fulfil a debt of gratitude to that generation. A generation who survived Hitler's blitz deserve the best health care.
The elderly are not a drain or a burden on the health service; they are the pioneers who designed and built the NHS. In its campaign "Dignity on the Ward", Help the Aged draws attention to the need to change the views of certain medical professionals about the elderly. Some 1,300 people wrote supporting the campaign and highlighting appalling standards of care in—again—parts of the NHS.
We are not talking just about discrimination that prevents people from receiving treatment; this goes much further. We need to stamp out the second-class-citizen mentality that is sometimes found nowadays. Older people deserve respect. Sometimes they are frightened to speak out, fearing that their treatment will be stopped, or never started, if they complain.
Age Concern discovered from a Gallup survey that one in 20 people over 65 had been refused treatment, while one in 10 felt that they had been treated differently since turning 50. It has been found that four out of 10 coronary care units apply age restrictions to certain drugs, that two thirds of kidney patients over 70 have been refused dialysis or transplants, and that some clinical trials involve age limits. That is blatant, unacceptable discrimination.
I urge the Government to set up a national inquiry to investigate this national scandal. We need to establish the extent of the discrimination that is spreading across society, to identify the underlying reasons for it, and to come up with new ways of rooting out the prejudice and discrimination. We need to educate, and to raise awareness of the problems. Above all, we need to send a clear signal to everyone in the NHS that discrimination will not be tolerated.
As for those—I shall call them angels—in the NHS who care so well for the elderly: I thank them. We must aim to raise standards to their level—to be sensitive, patient and respectful to the elderly. As for the minority who discriminate against and abuse the elderly, I remind them of this: one day, they too will grow old. I urge the House to support the Bill and to end discrimination against the elderly in the health care services.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Marsden, Mr. David Amess, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Paul Burstow, Dr. Vincent Cable, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Edward O'Hara, Ms Linda Perham and Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

HEALTH CARE STANDARDS FOR ELDERLY PERSONS

Mr. Paul Marsden accordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 to prohibit the refusal or delay of treatment or the provision of an inferior standard of care on the basis of age and to establish an inquiry into the extent of age discrimination in the provision of health services: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 103].

Orders of the Day — Freedom of Information Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Ordered,
That the Freedom of Information Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 16, Schedule 2, Clauses 17 to 54, Schedule 3, Clauses 55 to 60, Schedule 4, Clauses 61 to 66, Schedule 5, Clauses 67 to 72, Schedule 6, Clauses 73 to 84, Schedule 7, Clauses 85 and 86, new Clauses and new Schedules.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 1

GENERAL RIGHT OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION HELD BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES

Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 1, line 7, at end insert'.—
'.—(A1) The purpose of this Act is to facilitate public access to information held by public authorities.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—
Purposes—
'.—(1) The purposes of this Act are to extend progressively the right of the public to information held by public authorities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the need to protect interests specified in exemptions, so as to promote—

(a) the accountability of public authorities;
(b) informed public debate on public affairs;
(c) public participation in the making of decisions; and
(d) public understanding of the powers, duties and operation of public authorities.
(2) This Act shall be interpreted so as to further the purposes specified in subsection (1) and to encourage the disclosure of information, promptly and at the lowest reasonable cost.'.

Mr. Lidington: It gives me real pleasure, and almost a sense of nostalgia, to participate for the first time in the House's deliberations on the Freedom of Information Bill. I recall that one of the very first Standing Committees on which I served as a newly elected Member, in 1992 or 1993, considered the Right to Know Bill, which was a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). At various times in his parliamentary career—under Governments of red, of blue and of palish pink—he has been a doughty champion of the public's right to know and of greater access to information.
I think that there is a growing consensus both across the country and across the party political divide that a characteristic of a mature democracy is that we trust the people, and that that trust includes trusting people with access to information that previously might have been kept within the charmed circle of Whitehall and of parts of Westminster.
Amendment No. 100 seeks to establish a clear purpose to the Bill, by including in it a statement of aims that should govern the decisions of those who, when the Bill is enacted, will be charged with its interpretation and implementation. We believe that that is important because


the Bill includes a considerable number of tests that have to be applied to categories of information that, either wholly or partially, are exempt from the presumption that they should be disclosed. There should be a clear statutory direction from Parliament to those who will have to assess individual applications for disclosure that the overriding purpose of the legislation is to enlarge and enhance public access to official information.
The Conservative Government introduced the code of practice on access to Government information in 1994 and strengthened it in 1997. Although it was not a statutory document, it required public authorities to make information available, subject to a limited number of exceptions. The purpose clause was a significant element of the code. It was located at the beginning of the document and set out clearly that the approach of public authorities must
in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the public interest.
The Bill is deficient in having no clear statement of its purpose. Our amendment would ensure that its principal objective was to give the public the right of access to information held by the Government. New clause 1 approaches that deficiency in the legislation from a different angle, using different language. It is a matter of fine judgment as to which form of words one prefers. We see no harm in the new clause. Those who have tabled it are approaching the issue in the same spirit as the Opposition Front Bench.
The debate is not simply about the Conservative Opposition pointing to deficiencies in a Labour Government's Bill. The Public Administration Committee report in July 1999 said:
We recommend that the Bill should contain a clear statement indicating what it is intended to achieve and indicating a presumption in favour of disclosure.
That view was also expressed by the Data Protection Registrar, Mrs. Elizabeth France, who is due to become the first Information Commissioner under the Bill. In her response to the consultation document on the draft legislation, she argued that a straightforward purpose statement in the Bill would be helpful to all, especially those making decisions about disclosure in relation to any exemption.
The Government responded to the Select Committee report with two minor amendments that changed the title of the draft Bill and made the clause on the right of access to information the first clause. The Select Committee, with its Labour majority, was not satisfied with those minor concessions. In a further report, the Committee concluded that there was still no presumption in favour of disclosure.
A purpose clause was included in the non-statutory code of practice on access to information. Purpose clauses are common in overseas Freedom of Information Acts, including those of New Zealand and Australia, and they have been used in United Kingdom legislation, including the Arbitration Act 1996 and the present Government's Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I can see no persuasive reason why the Government should resist the introduction of a purpose clause. Even at this late stage of proceedings in this House, I hope that Home Office Ministers will listen to the united call from Members of all parties and from distinguished people outside the House with an interest in these matters and will conclude that the Bill should be amended.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) is entirely right to say that the issues adumbrated in amendment No. 100 are also central to new clause 1, which has been tabled in the names of hon. Members of all parties. We are seeking the same objective, which I should have thought would conform with the Government's stated wish to ensure that the enactment of the Bill will effect a climatic change in the business of administration. There should not be an adversarial procedure between those who seek information and want to open matters up, and those who hold that information and want to keep it back.
The Government's objective—enunciated in the White Paper preceding the Bill and in the statements by the Home Secretary and other Ministers—is to ensure that the public right to know is recognised in the code of practice and in law. In order to change the climate, it is very important that the Bill's purposes be set out clearly. That should not be done in narrow terms, or with a picky, legalistic approach to language. It should be done broadly, with the aim of carrying forward the right to know.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury described how the issue had been treated in other countries. The legislation in New Zealand and Australia has been established for quite a long time and contains provisions similar to those proposed in new clause 1. It has proved to be helpful in those countries, and I draw particular attention to the experience in New Zealand, which I think was in the mind of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who originally brought forward the Government's policy on this matter. The provision has been invoked by the New Zealand courts in seeking to interpret the law, and that seems to be a very practical use of a declaratory principle in legislation.
The language of new clause 1 closely follows the Australian legislation, which has been tried and has not been found wanting. The new clause goes slightly further than amendment No. 100, in that it spells out in some detail the purposes of the Bill under four headings. Those purposes are to promote
the accountability of public authorities…informed public debate on public affairs…public participation in the making of decisions, and…public understanding of the powers, duties and operation of public authorities.
Those objectives are all consonant with an open democracy.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the provision often been invoked by the courts in New Zealand? I simply do not know, but it is an interesting point.

Mr. Maclennan: I do not know how often "often" is, but it has been invoked on a number of occasions. It has achieved its purpose, in that it has indicated where the balance of the legislation lies. If there is a discretion to be exercised, the authorities should lean in the direction of recognising the public's right to know. In a sense, even if this had been cited only once—and I know that it has been cited more than once—it would have established, or helped to establish, as a matter of jurisprudence, that the Bill was leaning in that direction.
New clause 1 also seeks to underline that the process is perceived as dynamic. We are not passing a law that will always be precisely reflected in the behaviour of


officials without change and without the benefit of experience. In cases in which discretions must be exercised, it can be used progressively, and perhaps more openly, once initial concerns about the consequences for administration of openness of government are mitigated by the evidence that it achieves the purposes set out in the new clause.
I hope that the Minister will be strongly sympathetic to the purposes of the new clause, and will embrace it, for there is no mischief in it. The Minister may argue—as it was argued in Committee when similar attempts to introduce such a provision were made—that this is not necessary. I put it to him that it is necessary to remove doubt as to how the Bill is to be interpreted when issues come up for decision, and against what general rubrics such decisions should be taken.
New clause 1 has perfectly good precedents in other British legislation. I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Aylesbury has said, but I will refer again to the evidence given to the Select Committee on Public Administration by Elizabeth France, who is to be the commissioner. Her evidence must be given the greatest possible weight, as she will have the task of policing the legislation and ensuring that it is effective. She has straightforwardly said, about the idea of having a purpose clause:
I think it would be very helpful in making judgments about discretionary decisions…
She said in her oral evidence given in June 1999, question 187:
I would agree with Lord Burns that officials will look in detail at what is written in the statute unless a very clear lead is given from the top of the public bodies as to what action is appropriate. If there is nothing there that tells them to weigh in the balance a general interest in disclosure then they will not do so.
It is for that reason, above all, that we would do well to follow the precedents established overseas and incorporate them into the Bill.

Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) who contributed so much to the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
I urge the Government to be sympathetic to new clause 1 and amendment No. 100, both of which, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, seek to insert a general purposes clause in the Bill. I believe that to do so would set the tone of the whole Bill. That is what such clauses do in the legislation of New Zealand and in that of the other countries that we looked at for comparators.
I believe that the tone that I seek is the tone that the Government want to set. That tone would emphasise that the Bill aims to empower and liberate and to give people rights to be informed. It should give people the right to know what is going on in our society. Surely there can be no better way to frame such legislation than to include a simple purpose clause setting out its aims and objectives, establishing a presumption in favour of the right to know.
The Minister may say that the Bill is more complicated than that, which is true of such legislation in every country in which it has been introduced. There is a difficult balance between the rights of good government

and people's right to know, a point understood on both sides of the Chamber and by anyone who has studied freedom of information legislation. The principles are simple and clear, but achievement of freedom of information is difficult. To get the balance right while maintaining as the spine of legislation a presumption in favour of a right to know is the problem that a purpose clause would be valuable in tackling.
Sadly, I fear that that is precisely why the Government will resist the amendment, as they did in Committee. I remind the Minister of what he said then:
We must assume that such a clause would be given legislative effect by the commissioner, the tribunal and courts, and that it would therefore change the balance of rights and put a gloss on the Bill as a whole. That may be unpredictable and uncontrollable.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 January 2000; c. 29.]
Of course, a purpose clause would set a tone, but I think that it would put a constructive gloss on the Bill. I do not agree that it would be unpredictable and uncontrollable; plenty of controls are built into the Bill, and the commissioner will have plenty of powers.
The Bill is understandably and, in most instances correctly, hedged about with caveats. Over the next two days, we shall deal with many difficult matters on which the balance is fine. If we are to do right, however, we must hold in our minds a general presumption in favour of freedom of information and the right to know. A purpose clause at the beginning of the Bill would help us to do so.
The Minister may well be right to say that such a clause would change the Bill's balance, but I believe that it would do so constructively, ensuring that the Bill's thrust was positive and liberating, rather than reluctant. At present, I fear, the Bill has a grudging tone. That should not be so. The Government should be proud of it, and the people of the country should be liberated by it and proud of a Government who introduce it. However, wherever a balance must be struck between the rights of the public authority to withhold intellectual property—the information that it holds—and the rights of an applicant to have access to that information, the Bill comes down time and again in favour of the authority.
Sometimes, that is right. We shall hear of instances in which that is an understandable and justifiable position. However, it rings through the Bill like a tocsin that the balance falls in favour of the owner of information rather than the applicant. A purpose clause would be an attempt to correct that balance. If the Minister is correct to say that such a clause would add a gloss, I have to say that the Bill needs one.
5 pm
There is much good sense in the Bill, and we want to get it into statute as soon as possible and in the best possible state, but if it is to be the liberating legislation that it ought to be, it needs a framework that states clearly that it is on the side of the applicant and of people's right to know. For that reason, I hope that the Government will think again about this issue and find a way to draft a purpose clause that will declare their interest, and the public's interest, in information at the very start of the Bill.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). I agree with him that new clause 1 would give us the same protection, so


it is right to discuss it with the amendment. Although it is not enormously important which one is passed, it is important that one or the other be included in the Bill.
Freedom of information represents the most strikingly unpredicted disappointment with the new Labour Government. There are lots of predictable disappointments, such as the fact that they have raised taxes even when they said that they would not and the fact that they have run the health service into an even worse crisis. I remember predicting those outcomes myself at the last election, but some disappointments were not predicted by anyone.
Perhaps naively, I took seriously the new Labour Government's commitment to freedom of information. I was struck by the strong language of personal commitment used by the Prime Minister in that connection. The year before the election, he said that freedom of information was absolutely fundamental to how Labour saw politics developing in this country over the next few years. He said that it would signal a new relationship between Government and the people. I did not realise that that was nothing more than political hyperbole and eyewash.
In many ways the Bill represents a retreat from the status quo and the previous Conservative Government's non-statutory code—which in my view was entirely inadequate—in important respects such as the obligation to state reasons for refusing information and the obligation that manuals issued by Departments of State should be made available to the public.
The Bill is a substantial retreat also from the White Paper drafted by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Although I understand Labour Members' reticence about being too offensive to Ministers, I have no doubt that many of them, and millions of people across the country, share my enormous disappointment that the new Labour Government did not live up to their undertakings. To give him his due, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has a long and honourable record on this matter, and I am sure that he is one of those disappointed Labour Members.
The right hon. Member for South Shields sacrificed his career for this issue. He probably does not want to say that this afternoon, but he may do. I have no doubt that he genuinely stood behind his White Paper and, when he was in the Government, said, "The new Labour Government must live up to our undertakings and the expectations that we have aroused. We must introduce radical freedom of information legislation to make real change, as the Prime Minister promised we would. We must therefore be prepared to take risks, if necessary, to change the inward-looking culture of the public service and bureaucracy in general, which is suspicious of the public." I have no doubt that he went on saying that and battling up to the point at which the new Labour Government got rid of him because that point of view was extremely unwelcome.
The White Paper was buried and the right hon. Gentleman was fired, which is a pretty remarkable and memorable state of affairs. I do not think that anybody in this country who follows this matter, whether or not they are a supporter of a political party, can fail to have been struck by that and to share our serious disappointment.
Nothing is more important than how a Bill starts. How it starts, its title and, in this case, an introductory clause or statement of intention not only alert the public to

its aim, but could give guidance to the courts, the commissioner and, indeed, the bureaucracy—to the executive government machine—about the Bill's real purpose. If the Government fail at that first fence and are not prepared even to take on board the reasonably worded amendment or new clause, those of us who have already suffered great disappointment will find that it has been thoroughly confirmed.
That is particularly so because the argument for having words along the lines of the amendment and new clause has been pressed on the Government not from any party political point of view, but, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said, by many people with a dispassionate, entirely non-party political interest in the matter, including Elizabeth France, the person who will be responsible for implementing the Bill.
The Government will have to find incredibly good reasons to resist the amendment and new clause. Until we hear those reasons, many of us, in all parties, will continue to feel great disappointment and scepticism.
I fear that the Government are planning to rip up their promise, not explicitly—as they have on taxation, tuition fees for students, the referendum on electoral reform and all the other matters—but subtly. They have introduced legislation that has been so emasculated that it is merely a facade with no substance, structure or reality behind it.
I fear that that is a sign that, within the Government, where there are two tendencies—on the one side, the right hon. Member for South Shields, who has seriously argued for the opportunity for real change to be made, and on the other Alastair Campbell and the No. 10 media manipulation machine. The cause of manipulation of the media, being too clever by half and trying to fox and bamboozle the public by sophisticated modern spin-doctoring and public relations techniques, has won: in the Faustian conflict for the soul and character of the Government, the devil has won the day.

Dr. Tony Wright: Following the previous contribution, perhaps we can agree to get it all out of our system to start with—we might then have a serious discussion about some of the issues. It is tiresome to have to repeat the argument, but we are here because the previous Government did not introduce a freedom of information Bill. We are here because, even after the Scott report, they refused to introduce such a Bill. We are here because, even though a Select Committee with a Government majority in the previous Parliament recommended such a Bill, they still refused to introduce one, so let us get that out of the way to start with.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I much resent the hon. Gentleman saying that my remarks should be put out of the way and then referring to the previous Government's record. I was one of those who lobbied hard during their time in office for a freedom of information Bill. We got the very inadequate compromise of the non-statutory code. He may remember that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) were among those who refused to support the previous Government. Indeed, we voted against them on the Scott report, so the hon. Gentleman's remarks about several of us on the Conservative Benches are distinctly offside.

Dr. Wright: I pay warm and singular—or perhaps plural—tribute to the hon. Members who behaved in the


way that the hon. Gentleman describes in the previous Parliament. I have mentioned that on many occasions in the House. Unfortunately, there were not enough of them to persuade their colleagues to do the decent thing. The record is clear. I was prompted to mention it only because of the way he introduced his remarks, but it would be helpful to put all that to one side and concentrate on the matters at hand.
There is a genuine mystery about why the Government have been so reluctant to proceed on purpose clauses. Had I been able to pick out an example on which I would have thought them most happy to move, it would have been that. A form of words—a declaration—at the beginning of the Bill would have indicated a direction and an intention, and the cost to them would not have been much beyond that. Why have we not made more progress? A Committee of this House and a Committee of the House of Lords have considered the matter, and the overwhelming evidence from all directions is that purpose clauses would be useful. Overseas examples showed that, and we were able to give examples of domestic legislation in which they have been used, although they are not common.
We took devastating evidence from a number of sources. Perhaps the most devastating came from Lord Woolf, who is quoted in the Public Administration Committee report:
As I understand it, one of the things that the Government is seeking to do, and on which they should be complimented, is they are seeking to change the culture with regard to freedom of information and I think that in that sort of situation a signpost at the beginning as to the general intent of the legislation can be very important.
Quite simply, that is the point. A signpost at the beginning, as described by Lord Woolf, can be immensely important—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) got close to getting this just right—because so much depends on discretion and on judgment.
The Bill, in all kinds of examples, requires people to exercise discretion in respect of weighing whether there is a public interest in disclosure. The purpose clause has been discussed in relation to the Information Commissioner or the tribunal or a possible court, but it would have most impact in changing the culture of public bodies and departments and the way in which officials think. The one universal opinion from around the world on the introduction of legislation of this kind is that the change of culture has been the most important consequence. That was said to me in Australia and New Zealand. If one wants to change a culture, one has to say that one is engaged in a cultural change. That is profoundly important.
The culture of secrecy in this country has become a dreadful cliché, but it goes deep and wide in the public service because that is what it has been brought up on. With respect to the Minister, if a Government are saying, "We genuinely want to change all that", that is not a gloss but a profound and intended change of direction. We are asking public officials to balance withholding against disclosure in a way that they are not accustomed to, and stating at the beginning of the Bill where that balance is to be struck, wherever possible, would represent not simply a form of words but the animation of the exercise's

intention. That would send out a signal to people in every department in every public body as to what the Bill is about, what the Government intend and how the balancing exercise has to be carried out.
A purposes clause would not be a gloss. It would set a genuine tone and represent a culture, and our proceedings would get off to a splendid start if the Minister set the right tone by saying that he was persuaded of some of those arguments.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am happy to follow the distinguished Chairman of the Public Administration Committee—the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright)—and I shall not bicker with him too much about what happened to a White Paper that never came into existence. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was right to point out that the expectations as expressed in that White Paper were held by many Labour Members of Parliament. That is important; it was not just the extraordinary work of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We must remember that the White Paper was signed by the Prime Minister and approved by the Cabinet. The world and his wife would like to know what happened between that great expression—sought by many for a long time—and the Bill.
A purpose clause was one of the central reforms called for in Committee. Amendment No. 100 and new clause 1 are important for the reasons adduced by other right hon. and hon. Members. If I had to choose between the two provisions, I would argue for the new clause, because it sets out the key principles behind the reasons why we need and want freedom of information in this country.
The new clause states:
The purposes of this Act are to extend progressively the right of the public to information held by public authorities.
It lists four reasons why that right is needed. The first is the accountability of public authorities, which is one of the most important justifications for freedom of information.
In that context, I have often quoted Pope to the House:
What can we reason, but from what we know?
How can we reason if we do not know the substance or the essence of the issues that confront our public policy? As the Prime Minister pointed out, the Bill is about the stakeholder—about the relationship between the Government and the governed. That is an extraordinarily important proposition.
There is an innate secrecy—no doubt, a culture formed by two world wars—and a climate formed by the fact that sections of the Official Secrets Acts marched through the life of our nation for most of the 20th century. We want to reverse those principles. Why are we the most backward of the advanced democracies—ancient and considerate of liberties and so on—in continuing to want secrecy in the conduct of public business? That has consequences for us all.
The accountability of public authorities and those who hold office in them is an important interest. It certainly informed the White Paper, the Prime Minister's speeches before the election and much of the passion in the House.
The second reason for the right to information under the new clause is
informed public debate on public affairs.
I might almost call that an Alastair Campbell provision, because he constantly calls for informed public debate. Unfortunately, few of us live up to his standards of what is constituted by such debate. By and large, it is true that Governments do not fear ill-informed, uninformed or off-the-issue public debate, because they are the masters of information. What they find more difficult is equality of argument—where people are apprised of information available to the Government and there is thus reasoned, intelligent questioning and proper argument as to the best course for public affairs. That is why the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) supported the new clause: it will enable certain purposes.
The new clause would have the benefit, which the Government claim to want, of making the public more generally educated as to what government is about. Why do we have a Government? What are the difficulties that confront them? What is the purpose of public society in general? As previously set out, the aims for the Bill were consonant with the Government's arguments of not so long ago, with the White Paper and, I think, with what every freedom of information Act strives for. The White Paper was such that it inspired the commissioner in Canada to say that the Government's proposals left Canada trailing in Britain's dust. Now that claim is simply risible and the Bill, as an end product, appears to be a deceit. It is designed to defeat the very purposes that we understood were the Government's intent when they introduced such an important Bill.
All the arguments that I heard in the Select Committee on Public Administration, under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, were for a purpose clause. We heard from Elizabeth France, whose views are not to be put lightly to one side because she is commissioned with the job of data protection, not freedom of information. How do we weigh this matter? Should it be completely consumed in the protection and privacy provisions? We need a public interest provision, but we need a foundation that helps to guide people in their interpretation of the Bill and assists them in understanding the purpose that lies behind it.
Many of the phrases in the new clause derive from New Zealand's experience of freedom of information and from its Act. Eagles, Taggart and Liddell have written an important book, "Freedom of Information in New Zealand", in which they observe that the purpose provision
ensured that the number, tenor and the generality of the exemptions would not overshadow the raison d'etre of the Act.
The truth is that the Bill contains a strikingly huge number of exemptions, which eat away at the very principle of making available the information that is in the Government's gift. It is therefore important that we signal the tenor and the purpose of the Bill, so that those who interpret it do so in the understanding that the House of Commons sought to make available information and that the public interest lies in the availability of information rather than in its concealment.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I am tempted to call him my

hon. Friend on this matter—may recollect that, on a lovely spring morning in March 1998, he and I went to the office of the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We were in the company of Maurice Frankel, who has contributed so much to this issue. It is not a distortion to say that we came away from the meeting, if not elated, at least extremely pleased at what we had heard. We thought that, at long last, we would get a meaningful and significant—although perhaps not perfect—freedom of information Bill of the kind that had been promised to the electorate in 1997. We thought that that contract with the electorate was about to be fulfilled through the hard work of my right hon. Friend.
I was not able to be on the Committee that considered the Bill, but that was not for the want of trying. By some alchemy, as has happened before, I was not selected. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) laughs knowingly. We shall not go into the reasons for that decision.
I should like to ask two questions. The first follows on straightforwardly from the arguments of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). What is Ministers' assessment of how the proposed amendment could be used by the courts? If it is important in terms of legal interpretation, it is a significant and important amendment.
My second question is of a slightly different nature. By what alchemy—by what magic—did responsibility for these matters ever fall into the clutches of the Home Office? That is an important question. It was one thing to have the matter in the charge of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but it is quite another to put it into the clutches of that Department, which has, over the years, done more than any other to suffocate freedom of information. Now is the right moment to ask that question, and I am curious to hear the answer.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If the Government are to resist new clause 1, which I believe should be inserted into the legislation, the Minister faces a considerable burden—the need to overcome the arguments and to persuade people that the Bill will not be improved by its inclusion. It will not be sufficient to say that the new clause is not necessary: he will need to explain both why it is unnecessary and why it would cause mischief if it were included.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) posed a question that I had rehearsed in my mind before rising. The new clause would greatly assist the courts in determining Parliament's intention when they have to consider some challenge to the legislation—as sure as night turns to day, such a challenge will arise. Even if one reads the new clause again and again, it is hard to discover any purpose that could be served by resisting its inclusion, other than the desire to leave matters vague in the hope that, as a result, there will in future be some judgments in favour of deep conservatism in respect of disclosure of information.
I hope that the Government will reflect, both now and if the matter arises in the other place, on how the Bill would be improved by the amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister has a hurdle to overcome, in that the provision appears in comparable statutes of countries around the world, and that the commissioner-elect has


indicated that it would be useful. I hope that my hon. Friend will not rely merely on winning the vote, but will either win the argument and persuade us that the provision is unnecessary, or make a name for himself by indicating the Government's willingness to accept the new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I was not a member of the Standing Committee and, unlike the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I did not have a claim and seek to exercise it. However, I pay tribute to colleagues on both sides of the House who have combined to ensure that the important arguments are advanced in unison. We owe a duty to Parliament and to citizens outside this place to recognise that, on freedom of information above all other issues, if there is a choice to be made between the view of Back Benchers and that of the Government—regardless of which party is in government—one should trust the Back Benchers. Furthermore, if a case is backed by a coalition of senior and respected members of all three great parties of this country, the argument must be extremely strong.
5.30 pm
The second argument is legalistic. Legislation, even under new rules of interpretation, sometimes goes to the courts and is interpreted on the basis not of what we say in Parliament—although that can be taken into account more than it used to be—but of what is written on the page. Therefore, when it is necessary to establish what is behind the words, what is intended by the phrase, and what is meant by the clause or the Act, unless there is a purposes clause, there may be a legalistic interpretation, not an explained, intended interpretation.
That is a good reason for including a purposes clause, especially in this sort of legislation. A judge or an information commissioner will be in no doubt about the intention of Parliament. Although the formulation may not be perfect, better a formulation that points him in the direction of the intention than no formulation, which leaves him to guess and gives the courts the power to make a restrictive interpretation.
The third reason reflects the pertinent, though mischievously put, point made by the senior and persistent hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Bill has ended up with the Home Office as its captain, steering it through this place. We must be suspicious of government by Home Office on such an issue—as will be reflected in the debates on amendments today and tomorrow—because the Home Office is above all the Department of the security services, the Department of the police, the Department of the prisons, the Department of some of the courts, and the Department of the electoral system.
If ever we ought to be suspicious that a Government Department will want to find ways of not opening up government, that Department is the Home Office. However enlightened are the people in it, the combination of civil servants, advisers and Ministers will in the end say, "We must be careful here. We are the Department that is looked to to preserve the interests of the state." The move from Minister who is free-standing and much more accountable to Parliament to Minister in the Home Office, whoever the holder of that office is, is bound to take with it some suspicion that we are confusing the duties of government with the proper assessment of Government.
I hope that we will heed the voices from the three parties that have argued coherently and effectively, and experiences elsewhere. I have not seen the Minister's brief, but whatever it contains, I hope that he will be brave, as I once saw a colleague of his, now the Deputy Prime Minister, be. He ripped up and threw away his brief, saying "I am not reading this rubbish. I am going to say what I think." I hope that the Minister will make a great a name for himself by liberating himself from the brief, and liberating Parliament from the Home Office.

Dr. David Clark: I shall be brief. I did not intend to speak on the amendment, but I have been provoked so to do. When I introduced the White Paper to the House way back in December 1997, I felt that it was the right vehicle, and that it contained the right tone to create a new relationship between the citizens of this country and the Government.
I did so in the knowledge that, just six months previously, the citizens had indicated, by the representatives whom they sent to this legislature, that they wanted change. I was conscious also that we were entering a new millennium and that we were one of the worst countries among western democracies for giving access and information to our citizens.
That was the philosophy behind my intent. The purpose of the White Paper, in essence, was to change the culture of our political elite. I had no illusions about how difficult that would be, not only in central Government, but in all public administrations. However, I thought that it was the right thing to do.
We devised a system that was set out in the White Paper. There has been talk this afternoon about lawyers and legal interpretation. They are important matters and good reasons why we may need a purpose clause. More important, however, is the need to get the message across from the House that with this legislation, we want to change the political culture of our society. We want to renegotiate the relationship between our citizens and our Government, and that can be done only by ensuring that the interpretation of the Bill is that the presumption must be in favour of openness and not of secrecy.
I believe that new clause 1 is very much better than amendment No. 100. However, whether the new clause is accepted or not, it is important that the message emanate from this legislature loud and clear that we want a change of culture.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Mike O'Brien): I thank all colleagues who served on the Committee that considered the Bill and those who have contributed to this debate. These are important issues, and in many ways they are difficult to get right. The Government have been listening with a great deal of care throughout the debates.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I might make a little more progress before I give way to my hon. Friend. I thought that I had been fairly uncontroversial. Actually, I am fascinated by how controversial I can be, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his patience in allowing me to intervene so early in his reply.
I have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate and I have not heard a contribution to it that supports the Government's line in opposing the new clause and the amendment. Will my hon. Friend comment on why the Government do not appear to have any support that will be vocalised in the Chamber?

Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for making what he will know is a helpful intervention. He was about to hear the arguments that are deployed against the new clause and the amendment. If there is a Division, he will find that my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel able to support the Government. That is how they will express their views.
I was in the process of saying that we have listened carefully, particularly to the contributions that have been made by my hon. Friends and by Liberal Democrat Members, who made a number of constructive suggestions. As we continue to consider the Bill, I think that we shall find areas where the Government have listened to the Liberal Democrats and, on some occasions, even to Conservatives. It is all about getting the balance right and it is appropriate to debate how we do so. It is about balancing the needs for individual privacy, confidentiality and efficiency in government with the right of a citizen to have a statutory right to know what is going on. That applies not only to the Government but to other public authorities too.
I am asked, "Why the Home Office?" by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). He may well have joined the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in setting out a list of various reasons why he thinks that the Home Office is not the appropriate Department. They will know that the Home Office is the relevant Department in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Data Protection Act 1998, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and the electoral procedures Bill, which has now become the Representation of the People Act 2000. It is the Department that introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill to clean up the sleaze in politics in Britain. The Home Office, which has strongly improved our citizens' rights, is the right Department to make the constitutional change that we are considering.
I always pay great attention to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I usually agree strongly with them. He is right that we need to change the culture of our political elite. We must get the message across, through the debate and the Bill, that we want to change that culture and renegotiate the relationship not only between the citizen and the Government but between the citizen and all public authorities. However, that requires not a purpose clause, but a Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way shortly, but I want to proceed with the argument.
I have described the alchemy whereby the matter was appropriately referred to the Home Office. The Bill will ensure that we can renegotiate the relationship between the citizen and the state on freedom of information.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who opened for the Conservative party—

Mr. Lidington: Aylesbury.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that we should trust the people. For 18 years, the previous Conservative Government had no such wish to trust the people or to create a statutory right to know. That had to wait for a Labour Government. Conservative Members did not want a Bill; their amendment on Second Reading would have denied the measure a Second Reading. Some Conservative amendments, which we will consider later, try to restrict parts of the Bill. I shall therefore take no lectures from the hon. Member for Aylesbury about trusting the people.
I want to deal separately with amendment No. 100 and new clause 1, which is a more serious proposal that I would like to consider at length. Amendment No. 100 is a purpose clause, which adds nothing to the Bill. The long title already explains more comprehensively than the amendment the purpose of the Bill, which is to
Make provision for the disclosure of information held by public authorities or by persons providing services for them and to amend the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Public Records Act 1958; and for connected purposes.
The amendment is therefore unnecessary. It achieves nothing and I oppose it mainly because it is pointless. The Bill's purpose is already stated in the long title.
New clause 1 proposes a different, more ambitious purpose clause. Its supporters have argued for it in a different way.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend believes that the amendment is pointless and adds nothing to the Bill. Does he believe that the courts would share his opinion?

Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that the courts would take that view. They would probably say that such an amendment merely created a confusing approach to the Bill. They would ask why we had a long title and a purpose clause that replicated each other. They would have to work out Parliament's purpose in including such a duplication. It would confuse interpretation of the statute.
New clause 1 has a more ambitious purpose.

Mr. Shepherd: On the long title, the Government weighed up representations for a purpose clause. They heroically changed the original formula, which read:
Make provision about the disclosure of information
to "make provision for". Intellectually, if they can change such a big word as "about" to "for", why can they not embrace an amendment that sets out clearly and indisputably the purpose of the Bill?

Mr. O'Brien: I thought that I had just explained that to the hon. Gentleman. I listen with great care to his views on this subject, because unlike most Conservatives he has a long and strong record of supporting freedom of information, and I pay tribute to him for that. We want the Bill to express our view that the citizen should have a right to know, and I do not think that we need a purpose clause to make the Bill do what we want it to do.
I want to make some progress, but I shall take some interventions after I have set out the main body of my argument. I have heard the arguments, including the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Administration, that a purpose clause can be used to show clearly which of two or more competing values should be uppermost when a decision is made. However, I do not think that a purpose clause along the lines of new clause 1 is appropriate, and I shall set out precisely why.
One must assume that such a clause would be given legislative effect by the commissioner, the tribunal and the courts, so it would change the balance of rights that the Bill seeks to achieve. It is not possible to say that in every case one right should trump another. The right of access to information must be balanced against the right to privacy and confidentiality. Too strong a presumption in favour of disclosure for certain purposes, however worthy, over other competing rights to privacy or confidentiality could lead us into conflict, perhaps with the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I want to make some progress.
The Bill must be set in the broader context of the Government's wider agenda for reform, including the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. It must be considered as a whole. We do not want to create provisions through a purpose clause that disturb the balance in the Bill and that may—we know not—bring us into conflict with the Human Rights Act.
Openness does not have a monopoly on righteousness. Privacy and confidentiality have their proper place, and the right of the public to know must not place an unnecessary burden on business or undermine the proper and efficient running of government in the public interest.
We know that a weak confidentiality clause in the United States legislation allows companies to use the freedom of information regime to obtain information about competitors. Up to 60 per cent. of requests under the US freedom of information legislation are from companies trying to find out what the Government know about their competitors. We must have a balanced approach to these provisions.

Dr. Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Not at the moment. I want to go through my argument, and then I will happily give way to hon. Members.
Such an emphasis on certain purposes could backfire. If business were inhibited from giving the Government commercially sensitive information, on the basis that it might be released under freedom of information legislation, it would affect the effective regulation of the financial sector, trade and commerce, which could be undermined. The public interest in freedom of information could conflict with the public interest in regulating business.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) rightly referred to Elizabeth France's comments on this issue. We want her to be

the Information Commissioner. I am familiar with the arguments that Mrs. France put to the Select Committee on Public Administration when she gave evidence on the draft Bill in June last year. She argued for a purpose clause on the basis that
it would be very helpful in making judgments about discretionary decisions,
and went on to say that a purpose clause
fits also with my view that discretionary decisions should be reviewable in substance, the two are a package, if you like.
It is important to remember that, when Mrs. France gave evidence, the draft Bill only permitted the Information Commissioner to specify the circumstances that an authority could take into account when determining the public interest. The draft Bill gave the commissioner no power to order or even recommend disclosure in the public interest. Moreover, it did not explicitly require authorities to comply with a requirement to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining an exemption. Mrs. France's arguments were therefore based on the understanding that a purpose clause would indirectly strengthen the provisions relating to discretionary disclosure, and underpin the commissioner's power to specify to authorities the matters that they should take into account.
The discretion has gone, or will, I hope, have gone very shortly, when the Bill is amended. The Information Commissioner will have sweeping powers under our new provisions. The Government, however, accepted many of the criticisms made during the Bill's earlier stages. As a consequence, right of access was made the subject of clause 1, and the then discretionary disclosure provision in clause 13 was amended to give an express balancing of the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining an exemption. The discretion to which Mrs. France referred, and for which she required a purpose clause, has been replaced by an entirely different statutory duty that will not, in my view, require that purpose clause. The long title of the Bill was also amended in response to what was said by the Committee in the Lords.
The Government intend to strengthen further the provisions dealing with disclosure in the public interest. The Government amendments tabled at this stage remove the discretionary element from decisions under clause 13, and oblige authorities to communicate requested information to applicants when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exemption. That is a new statutory duty. The commissioner will also have power to issue decision and enforcement notices in respect of decisions under clause 13.

Dr. Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will in due course. Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait until I deal with what he said earlier.
I believe that our amendments remove the difficulties that Mrs. France experienced with the draft Bill, and also remove the need for a compensatory purpose clause.

Mr. Fisher: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I am facing a number of demands. I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Caithness,


Sutherland and Easter Ross first. I shall then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), and after that I must make progress.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has tried to deal with some of the points that I have raised, but he has seriously misrepresented the views expressed by Elizabeth France to the Committee. She was not speaking about the discretion that she was exercising in the discharge of her duty, which has perhaps been affected by the Government's redrafting of the Bill—although I beg to suggest that the Government's own retained power to veto her suggestions vitiates the Minister's point. She was clearly referring to the discretions being exercised by others. She said that when, as the potential authority, she examined the Bill it would be helpful to know
what I could use to hang a view that a discretionary decision had been improperly taken.
Throughout his speech, the Minister has changed the whole emphasis of the Government's approach as set out in their White Paper "Your Right to Know". The presumption of openness—that was the language used by the Government in the White Paper—has become a balance that must be struck. There is no presumption of openness in anything that the Minister has said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was quite a long intervention, albeit one on a technical matter.

Mr. O'Brien: I have certainly not sought to misrepresent Mrs. France's views. Mrs. France was explicit about them, and the right hon. Gentleman must take it from me that I have done my best to reflect them. She was speaking of decisions made by others, particularly public authorities and Ministers.
The right hon. Gentleman appears not to realise that we are not just changing the balance, but creating a new statutory duty of openness. When there is a public interest in a matter's being open, and when an exemption applies, the public authority will be obliged to make the information public, if it is outside the remit of proper secrecy in the public interest.
We all agree that, in some circumstances, an element of secrecy may be necessary: I do not think any hon. Member would dispute that. Such secrecy may sometimes be in the public interest; but the balancing decision must be made, and when the balance comes down in favour of the public interest in terms of the right to know, no public authority will retain any discretion. There will be no discretion for Ministers either: they, and public authorities, will have to disclose the information. We have made a radical change in the law, and our amendments are, in substance, entirely different from what was in the Bill when Mrs. France spoke to the Committee.

Dr. Tony Wright: I am interested by what my hon. Friend is saying, but I am not sure that he has got to the heart of what some of us were arguing.
Clause 33 deals with the formulation of Government policy, an area in which there is no harm test. We have been told that the Bill is about changing the culture of Whitehall. Whitehall is here being asked to consider the public interest in relation to the formulation of Government policy. How are those in Whitehall to understand what the public interest is? How are they to

decide what can properly be withheld on a discretionary basis? How can they decide what is to be disclosed? What reference point is available to them?
One of the aims of a purpose clause is to give those people the necessary information. It is there to tell them the purpose of the Bill, so that, when engaged in the balancing exercise, they can operate within a framework of intention; otherwise, the clause is vacuous.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is wrong. We shall come to this later, and I shall heed any strictures from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; but clause 13 draws attention to the need to create a balance. It establishes a statutory duty to give the public information when the public interest in that information being made public outweighs the public interest in its remaining confidential. Precisely what my hon. Friend wants is being done, not in a purpose clause but in clause 13.
We introduced the provision in clause 13 because we feared that, in its operation throughout the realm of the Bill, the purpose clause might disturb a careful balance that we have sought to create between the various issues that I mentioned at the outset. I am not sure that there is a great deal of difference between my hon. Friend and me on this point. We want to bring about circumstances in which information is disclosed when that is in the public interest. When the public seek such information, they should have a right to request it, and the public authority will have a statutory duty to disclose it, provided that it judges that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in not disclosing.
That is being done in clause 13. My hon. Friend wants it to be done in a purpose clause, but I hope he will see that, because a purpose clause could well apply to the whole Bill, there is an unpredictability about the way in which it would affect the other clauses. That is why we are reluctant to adopt his suggestion. I am not sure that we want different things, in practice: I suspect that we seek much the same end, but in different ways.

6 pm

Fiona Mactaggart: Perhaps the Minister would recall that, in discussing this type of issue on Second Reading, he advocated the approach that he said had been taken in New Zealand, which he believed had
concentrated less on the wording of the legislation than on the cultural changes and…achieved a greater degree of openness. Legislation is only part of the process. It provides the essential legal base, but creating a new culture of openness is in many ways the real test.—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 789.]
My view is that the people who are pressing new clause 1 are concerned that, in the four months since the Minister made that statement, that new culture of openness has not been seen. Perhaps he could tell us what the Home Office has done in those four months to create a culture of openness, and why we should not request a legislative framework that forces it to create such a culture?

Mr. O'Brien: I am very happy to tell my hon. Friend how we have set about doing that. We published—at the beginning of February—the report of the working party on freedom of information in the public sector, which demands that public authorities begin now, before the Bill is passed, to open up their procedures to the public and to


ensure that they comply with a statutory right to know. If they wait until the Bill is passed, many of them will be caught out.
The Government want to do precisely what I said in Committee, and precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase is seeking to do: to change not only the culture in which Whitehall operates—it is a culture of much too much secrecy—but the types of culture that operate in far too many public authorities in the United Kingdom. Changing that culture is not only about passing laws, but about getting inside the organisations and changing them, as Canada has tried to do.
The Canadian information commissioner has said that, after Canada's 15 years of freedom of information legislation, although it had strong laws, it had not achieved the cultural change. We want to achieve that cultural change not only in institutions of government, but beyond government. We are aware, however, that simply passing laws is not good enough: we have to change the culture as well.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I should like to make some progress, as I have been speaking for quite some time.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister promised.

Mr. O'Brien: I did. I shall give way, one last time, to my hon. Friend, and then I want to finish.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister talked about unpredictability. However, unpredictability will be precisely the product of our failure to include a purpose clause in the Bill. The effect of omitting such a clause would be similar to throwing things up in the air and hoping that they fall in the right place. We could have enormous good luck and see the first freedom of information case being decided by a very radical judge—in which case there could well be weeping and gnashing of teeth in Government and in some public bodies. Conversely, a deeply Conservative judge could decide the first case. Hon. Members have a duty, when we can, to be precise in our legislation, and that is precisely what we are being invited to do in this debate.
As for the Government always knowing best about legislation, on some occasions, are not the authors of legislation perhaps the legislators themselves? There is overwhelming support for some precision in this matter, and that support is buttressed by what has happened successfully elsewhere.

Mr. O'Brien: The reason we are not prepared to go along with the new clause is that we are concerned that its very vagueness—my hon. Friend expressed his concern about vagueness—will affect the Bill in a manner that we cannot predict. Neither he nor I know how this purposes clause might be interpreted, but we do know how clause 13 could be amended.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I have said that I shall not give way.

Mr. Fisher: The Minister has not given way to me.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but it is the last time.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that it is very clear how the purposes clause will be interpreted? It will be interpreted precisely as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) explained when moving it—in favour of a presumption for openness—and it is precisely for that reason that we wish the Government to consider it. The Minister pays tribute to himself for his amendments to clause 13—[Interruption.] I concur with the tribute to those changes. Although, unfortunately, the changes are undermined by Government new clause 6 and the veto, they are in themselves admirable.
The Minister said that there was no difference between those who support new clause 1 and the Minister's position—but there is. He said that the new clause might apply to the whole Bill, and that is precisely right. Those of us who support new clause 1 want the presumption to run seamlessly through the Bill, so that it operates in the whole Bill. If the Minister cannot understand that, we have not prosecuted our case in the debate. However, he should be able to listen to his own words. Although he said that he wants a cultural change, almost everything that he has said in replying to the debate has been apprehensive about freedom of information and fearful of what will happen. He has been reluctant—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand that this is a closely reasoned debate, but the art of an intervention is that it be succinct. We have had some very long interventions, which I really am no longer prepared to countenance.

Mr. O'Brien: I tell my hon. Friend that the Government's amendments to clause 13 will change the entire basis on which the Bill operates, and that they will do so in a manner that is careful, calculated and predictable. Good law needs to be careful, calculated and predictable. What is not predictable is to have a purposes clause that, with all its worthy ambitions, is somewhat vague. I simply do not know what the impact would be if we were to allow new clause 1 to become part the Bill, and I would rather not take that risk. It may not have the effect that either my hon. Friend or I wish it to have.
There are places for purposes clauses, but I suggest that this particular Bill—which is carefully balanced—for all the reasons that we discussed in Committee, is not the place for one. That is our view. As I said, I do not think that there is a great issue of principle in the matter, because I do not think that the legislation's eventual outcome is much in dispute between most hon. Members and me. We should ensure that we create a Bill that works and starts to change the culture.
I should like to deal with some of the points made by other speakers in the debate. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked whether I have any sympathy for the principles of the new clause.


The answer is yes. I have much sympathy for his objective, but I do not think that there is a great difference between his objective and ours. I also think that we achieve the objective, but in a different way, in clause 13.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that the Bill's aim was to empower the citizen to obtain information. He is right. Although I understand his views on the Bill, I believe that we can achieve his objectives by passing the Bill with the Government amendments.
In a speech that amounted to little more than party political badinage, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)—the sage of Grantham and Stamford, who seems to have left the Chamber—said that he had predicted all the faults of the new Labour Government. Although he seemed to criticise us for not going far enough, undoubtedly he also supported Conservative Front Benchers when they suggested that the Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The fact is that most Conservative Members do not want a Freedom of Information Bill at all.
In the 1997 Conservative campaign guide for candidates, as a possible reply to those who ask for a Freedom of Information Bill, Conservative Members advised:
The only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a Freedom of Information Act are inquisitive left-wing busy bodies.
That tells us the extent to which Conservative Members believe the Bill necessary.
The Freedom of Information Bill is an important Bill. Although I have enormous respect for the very strong views represented by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and by many of my hon. Friends, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between us. Clause 13 will achieve most of what hon. Members want from the new clause and will do so with predictability, which is very important.

Mr. Maclennan: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Maclennan: I am most grateful.
I found the Minister's answers wholly unsatisfactory. We shall wish to divide separately on new clause 1 at the appropriate stage if there is an opportunity to do so.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about an alchemical process. Alchemy was the search to transmute lead into gold. We have witnessed the reverse process. The gold was in the White Paper produced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who was entirely clear about the process. It was not a difficult balancing process in which every possible exercise of discretion was measured against particular tests of public interest. The idea was to change the balance and introduce a new presumption of openness—not just a presumption set out in a code, but a presumption of law.
The Minister's central argument was about the balancing act. He used the word "balance" about 10 times. Because balance, rather than the presumption of openness,

has become the underlying principle of the Bill, we are right to be very suspicious about what the Government are minded to do.

Mr. Lidington: The unanimity of the views expressed on both sides has been the remarkable feature of the debate—or perhaps I should say the near unanimity. The one discordant note has come from the Minister, who had to make his case without any support from his hon. Friends or from any other quarter of the House. That fact more than any other shows the weakness of the ground on which the Government are standing.
As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has reminded us, the Minister said many times that it was all a question of getting the balance right. That is hardly the most controversial statement. He then repeatedly asserted that accepting the amendment or the new clause would impinge in some way on other rights and liberties of British citizens. However, he was far less forthcoming when it came to any detailed explanation of how that might come about.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I did not suggest that inserting the hon. Gentleman's amendment would impinge on the rights of citizens. If he is suggesting that I said that, he is wrong. I merely said that it would do nothing.

Mr. Lidington: The thrust of the Minister's remarks was that inserting any purpose clause would put difficulties in the way of those charged with interpreting and implementing the legislation, because they would have to give priority to the duty of openness over their other duties on personal privacy or other forms of confidentiality.
6.15 pm
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) made the powerful point that the purpose of the reforms of which he was the author was to change the institutional culture of Whitehall. No one who has supported the amendment or the new clause is criticising the professional civil service in Whitehall by agreeing that the institutional culture needs to be changed. Any Member of Parliament who has sought to craft a series of parliamentary questions to extract information that an unwilling Department did not wish to divulge is aware of the problem. The only people who are even more aware of the culture that needs to be changed are those of us who have ever been on the other side of the fence, sitting in Whitehall and having a share in drafting the answers to parliamentary questions.
The case for a purpose clause remains strong. The Government have not provided an adequate explanation of their reluctance to accept such an amendment. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place, the members there will note the near unanimity of support for a change in this House from the Back Benches and from all Opposition parties. In the light of the Government's refusal to take seriously the concerns that have been expressed this evening, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 339.

Division No. 141]
[6.16 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Allan, Richard
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Amess, David
Horam, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Baldry, Tony
Hunter, Andrew


Ballard, Jackie
Jenkin, Bernard


Beggs, Roy
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beith, Rt Hon A J



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Keetch, Paul


Bercow, John
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Beresford, Sir Paul



Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Breed, Colin
Letwin, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lidington, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burnett, John
Livsey, Richard


Burns, Simon
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burstow, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Butterfill, John
Loughton, Tim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Clappison, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Cotter, Brian
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Maples, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Mates, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
May, Mrs Theresa


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan, Alan
Moore, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Fallon, Michael
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Flight, Howard
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gale, Roger
Prior, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marlon (Broxbourne)


Grieve, Dominic
Ruffley, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hague, Rt Hon William
St Aubyn, Nick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Sanders, Adrian


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harvey, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)





Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Trend, Michael


Soames, Nicholas
Tyler, Paul


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tyrie, Andrew


Spicer, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Spring, Richard
Walter, Robert


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles


Steen, Anthony
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Webb, Steve


Stunell, Andrew
Wells, Bowen



Whitney, Sir Raymond


Swayne, Desmond
Whittingdale, John


Syms, Robert
Willetts, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Mr. Stephen Day and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Peter Atkinson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Banks, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cooper, Yvette



Corbett, Robin


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Best, Harold



Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darvill, Keith


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dobbin, Jim



Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Ennis, Jeff


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Galbraith, Sam


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George






Gardiner, Barry
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McFall, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grogan, John
McLeish, Henry


Gunnell, John
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
McWilliam, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mallaber, Judy


Healey, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heppell, John
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hill, Keith
Maxton, John


Hinchliffe, David
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Merron, Gillian


Hoey, Kate
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Home Robertson, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moffatt, Laura


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howells, Dr Kim
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hutton, John
Mudie, George


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mullin, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser
Pollard, Kerry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


Khabra, Piara S
Pope, Greg


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Laxton, Bob
Primarolo, Dawn


Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quinn, Lawrie


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Linton, Martin
Rammell, Bill


Lock, David
Raynsford, Nick


Love, Andrew
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)





Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rooney, Terry
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roy, Frank
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ruane, Chris
Timms, Stephen


Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark


Ryan, Ms Joan
Touhig, Don


Salter, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Savidge, Malcolm
Truswell, Paul


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vaz, Keith


Singh, Marsha
Walley, Ms Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Watts, David


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
White, Brian


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Soley, Clive
Wills, Michael


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wilson, Brian


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wood, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Woodward, Shaun


Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wyatt, Derek


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Stringer, Graham
Mr. David Jamieson and


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Mr. David Lock): I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Where a public authority—

(a) reasonably requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and
(b) has informed the applicant of that requirement,

the authority is not obliged to comply with subsection (1) unless it is supplied with that further information.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 45, 54, 89 and 90.
New clause 3—Duty to assist—

'.—(1) A public authority shall take all reasonable steps to assist any person in seeking to exercise any right under this Act.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) a public authority shall have regard to any relevant guidance contained in the code of practice issued under section 44.'.

Mr. Lock: This group of amendments deals with various procedural matters relating to requests for information. The first amendments to which I shall speak impose duties in various ways on authorities dealing with requests.
Amendment No. 44 clarifies the situation where authorities require further information from the applicant in order to identify and locate the requested information. In such a situation, the Bill does not require the authority to comply with clause 1(1) unless such further information is supplied. It was already implicit in the Bill that authorities had to inform applicants of what further information they required. However, the amendment makes it explicit in the Bill that in such circumstances, authorities are obliged to ask the applicant for such further information. If they do not inform the applicant of their requirement for further information, their obligation to comply with clause 1(1) still stands.
6.30 pm
The Government have tabled amendment No. 44 in response to an earlier amendment to clause 1, moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), and I am happy to clarify the effect of the Bill in this regard. This is related to the Data Protection Act 1998, under which data controllers receive requests from members of the public for data that they hold. Amendment No. 89, therefore, inserts a new paragraph into schedule 6, which deals with further amendments to the 1998 Act, to make similar provision in that Act in respect of requests for personal information that fall within the scope of that Act.
Amendment No. 90 is designed simply to tidy up the drafting of paragraph 1 of schedule 6 as a consequence of amendment No. 89. Because amendment No. 89 inserts a new first paragraph into schedule 6, it is no longer necessary for the existing paragraph 1 to refer to the Data Protection Act 1998 in full.
Amendment No. 54 concerns the obligations that authorities have when refusing a request for information. The amendment will oblige authorities, when refusing an application for information, to inform the applicant of any internal review procedure the authority may have—or, indeed, to inform the applicant that the authority does not have such a procedure—and also to inform the applicant of their further right to apply for a decision by the Information Commissioner under clause 50.
The amendment makes explicit in the Bill what was already implicit. The Government have brought it forward in response to one moved by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), while taking into account any internal review procedure that an authority may have. It is, of course, important that any internal review procedure be first exhausted before the application is made to the commissioner. The amendment therefore addresses all relevant aspects of the issue, and clarifies applicants' appeal rights in the Bill.
Amendment No. 45 deals with the time for compliance. It places an upper limit on the Secretary of State's power by regulation to extend the statutory time limit for responses to applications beyond the 20 working days set out in clause 9(1). That upper limit—the longstop—is 60 working days from the day following the date of receipt of the application.
The 20 working day time limit for responses set out in subsection (1) was introduced following the Government's acceptance of a recommendation of the Select Committee

on Public Administration. Let me be clear from the outset that the Government believe that 20 working days is the right period within which a response should normally be given to an application. I will go further—subsection (1) provides specifically that a public authority must comply promptly with a request for information. We consider that 20 working days is the maximum that it should take, but we shall look to public authorities to respond earlier than the 20th day when an application is straightforward.
At present, the Government have no intention of extending the statutory time limit under regulations, but there should be provision in the Bill to do so if, at some future time, there is a genuine case for it. The power in subsection (3) is in reserve, and I repeat that the Government have no intention that it should be used except in exceptional circumstances. Regulations made under this subsection would not be appropriate, or indeed necessary, in respect of isolated cases, in which the Information Commissioner already has discretion to agree a different date. What is, however, needed is a power to prescribe a different day in the sort of situation in which, because of unforeseen circumstances, it would be unreasonable or impossible to deal with applications within the existing statutory deadlines.
I can understand why right hon. and hon. Members have tabled new clause 3. It would place public authorities under a statutory duty to assist applicants and to have regard to the guidance contained in the Secretary of State's code of practice in so doing. The Government sympathise fully with the desire behind the new clause to ensure that applicants are helped to exercise their rights rather than obstructed or hindered. That is an important part of the change of culture to which the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), referred to before the Division.
When we replied to the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration on the White Paper, the Government accepted the need for authorities to give such assistance. I hope that the amendments that I have outlined have convinced those who tabled the new clause that, where appropriate, the Government are prepared to impose statutory duties on authorities to give reasonable help to applicants. However, after reflection we concluded that the best way to do that was not through the creation of a general, and somewhat vague, statutory duty along the lines proposed. Statutory duties must be clear, definite and enforceable if they are to have legal meaning, which they must if they are included in the Bill. In that way, not only will authorities be sure how to follow them, but the enforcement body can be sure when duties have been breached and has a route to provide a remedy. When a specific action can be identified, a duty may properly arise. That is why the Government have brought forward amendments to impose duties on authorities in the specific instances that I have just outlined—for example, the duty to request further information, or the duty to inform the applicant of their rights of appeal.
The new clause goes considerably further, and seeks to place a general, but insubstantial, duty on authorities that would be difficult to monitor and is so vague as to be difficult, if not downright impossible, to enforce. The content of the obligation is also so unclear as to leave authorities in an invidious position. What are reasonable steps in one situation may be different in another, depending on the type of request, the type of authority,


and the type of questioner. The sort of assistance that a large local authority or police service might reasonably give to an individual requester is different from the sort of assistance that a school governing body might reasonably be expected to give a parent-teacher association, and rightly so. Clearly, any duty in the Bill will apply to every public authority, however small, in whatever circumstances.
It is good practice for authorities to give help where appropriate, in ways that are appropriate. That is why we have drafted the Bill to include a requirement that the Secretary of State's code of practice made under clause 44 includes guidance on
the provision of advice by public authorities to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to them.
This means that the sort of assistance that authorities should give can be described more broadly than is possible in a statutory provision. It also means that the commissioner, when issuing practice recommendations to authorities which have failed to comply with the code, can have regard to current best practice in making decisions, and not just to the strict letter of a statutory provision.
In the light of the contents of the code and of the other amendments, I cannot invite the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Apart from the new clause, this is a group of Government amendments. Many of them are technical matters which the Government are using to amend their own legislation. We frequently find, with the pressure of time that the Government have imposed on themselves, that, at various stages during a Bill's proceedings, they say that they have got something wrong and have to tidy it up in response to pressure in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raised a number of issues in Committee, not least in relation to data protection, as did many other members of the Committee.
I know that there are many lawyers in the House, but I may be unique in having conducted data protection cases in the courts. I do not know whether the Minister has. He shakes his head. Having dealt professionally with data protection issues before I came to the House—and afterwards, when I was still on the Back Benches—I know how complex they are. On this occasion, perhaps we should accept that the Government have been sensible to realise that certain changes needed to be made to the Bill as it overlaps with data protection issues. There was much discussion in Committee about the views of the Data Protection Registrar.
I do not want to detain the House on this group of amendments, among which are none from the Opposition Front-Bench team. However, I look forward with great interest to the speeches of those in the cross-party group which tabled new clause 3.
There has been some concern. I have tabled written questions to Home Office Ministers asking when we might see the final code. The cross-party group is undoubtedly right to ask about the code. A draft code was placed before Committee members, but—by no fault of the Minister—even at this late stage, we have not seen the final code, which is of concern to the cross-party group, the Opposition, the Campaign for Freedom of Information, business, commerce, industry and representative organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry.
I hope that we shall hear about the code, but it is perhaps an issue best left to the cross-party group which tabled new clause 3.
We do not propose to raise any further questions on these amendments, but shall have much to say later about other data protection issues.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall speak to the Government amendments as a surrogate member of the so-called cross-party group, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has temporarily gone elsewhere and will return shortly.
Government amendment No. 44 groups logically with new clause 3, and I shall deal with those provisions last. I heard what the Minister said about amendment No. 45, and I accept that it is intended to set wide parameters although the Government intend a 20-working-day compliance period. The amendment provides an outer limit—a welcome fall-back position, which we understand and do not oppose.
Amendment No. 54 effectively requires that public authorities who refuse to furnish an applicant with details must explain the appeal procedure. That is clearly welcome, and provides the citizen with access to pursue his or her rights where applicable.
Amendment Nos. 89 and 90 amend schedule 6, and will, in opening the compliance procedure on personal information, have an effect similar to that of amendment No. 44 on general information. It is logical to amend the Data Protection Acts in addition to making provision in the Bill. The Data Protection Registrar, who will perform the balancing act on the public's behalf, should also have a duty not simply to say that information cannot be provided, but to put a case on the record. We accept that logical clarification.
All three amendments benefited from debate in Committee, which is exactly how the Bill has been improved in small ways. I pay tribute to the Government for responding in that way.
I shall leave it to other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is part of the leading and drafting team, to speak to new clause 3, but I have one point to make which links it to amendment No. 44. I understand the logic of the Minister's argument that specific obligations, such as providing that simply to say no to a request should be inadequate, must be clarified. Specific duties are better where possible. Amendment No. 44 is welcome for that reason, but the Minister implied that there was a difference of scale between small amendments in the right direction, such as amendments Nos. 44 and 54, and new clause 3.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made one point about new clause 3; I shall make two. Today's Order Paper contains a written question for answer today about the code of practice. The answer has not yet reached me, but I understand that more information may be available as a result.

Mr. Lock: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 44(4), which provides that
Before issuing or revising any code under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Commissioner?


Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be impossible to finalise a form of the code before Royal Assent, and, therefore, before the formal appointment of the commissioner, because the required consultation could not have taken place?

Mr. Hughes: I understand that point, but the Government have been helpful to Parliament in establishing the practice of publishing draft Bills and codes where possible. [Interruption.] If I read the Minister's lips correctly, he is saying, "We have." Certainly, today's written question implies that that is so. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) asked
the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the draft code of practice to be made under Clause 44.
Miracle of miracles, the draft code has doubtless been published this afternoon, just in time for our debate.

Mr. John Bercow: The strength of the parliamentary question.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed it is, although this one happens to be a planted parliamentary question, which is never quite so good, even if it is a convenient hook.
Our slight difficulty is that, as parliamentary questions are answered from 3.30 pm and our debate began at about 4.30 pm, not many hon. Members can have found, read, marked, learned and inwardly digested the draft code in time to tell the Minister whether it is just as we like it. I accept that there has been progress; and I take the technical point that we cannot have a code of practice until the commissioner has been appointed, and that requires enactment of the Bill. However, I am not entirely comfortable about being asked to accept an argument that counters new clause 3, which was tabled several days ago, by use of a draft code that we have not yet seen. I am not being over-aggressive about that point, but it is unfortunate that we could not have seen the code earlier in order to decide how far it addressed the concerns in new clause 3. The other place can of course deal with these things, but we should have the maximum information available to us.
My second point about new clause 3 is that it obliges hundreds of public authorities listed in the schedules to ensure that people are assisted rather than having difficulties put in their way. I have been in the House long enough to recall various Bills to open up local government or give access to medical and local government records. They are all about giving people rights to go to the town hall, ask for a photocopier, have copies made, and so on.
All that is fine, and the small print is important. However, the new clause proposes that steps should be taken. I do not think that it is necessarily bad law or flawed to make a general proposition simply because, say, a patent agency will clearly act differently from, say, a water authority. The point is similar to one made during our debates on the purpose clause. The new clause would establish—much less controversially or complicatedly than the purposes clause would have done—an obligation across public authorities to help the citizen. We would be using statute to remind public bodies that they are

agencies of the public, not authorities over the public. "Public authority" is sometimes an unhelpful term for agencies intended to be systems that support the public.

Mr. David Davis: They are public servants.

Mr. Hughes: Indeed, they are public servants, funded by public money and answerable to the public. In this age, when the Government divest themselves of functions, that often makes it more difficult to get access to information. We must all be aware of that problem and I am sure that we all come across it regularly in our constituency work.
I understand, but do not accept, the proposition that we cannot, in the Bill, assert the duty on the public authority to provide information. It is not impossible to take public authorities to court and to arbitrate, either internally through a commissioner or externally through a court. This country has come a long way in administrative law in the past 30 years, and courts are used to dealing with it.
We hope that the Bill will reduce litigation; one of its purposes is to ensure that people do not have to hunt for information through the courts because they will automatically have access to it. I fear that there may be a series of legal battles ahead to establish those rights. Around the world, access to information from the state has not been achieved without such battles. However, it is not sufficient for Ministers to say that a general proposition and duty cannot be added to the Bill or that such a proposition and duty could not, when coupled with guidance, be adapted to different public authorities, large or small, or broad or narrow in their remit.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we share his concern that the Government's alteration of their stance and, in particular, their approach to the matter that he has raised, will not only increase complexity, which was discussed at great length in Committee, but lead to more litigation, at least in the first few years after the Bill becomes an Act?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me to my next point. One of the problems is that, following the history of the parliamentary drafting mechanism, we still legislate in a complicated way. As somebody who, like others, has trained as a lawyer but who tries to make sure that the law is accessible, I have to say that it is still difficult for citizens to find out what rights they have. One of the best ways to ensure that they know their rights is to have a proposition and an explanation of how they can avail themselves of their rights.
That argument holds water for the reason that most countries in the world have a written constitution: such constitutions do not include every minutiae of right and entitlement against every agency of the state; they assert a proposition to which people respond. That proposition is a statement of the balance of power.
I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point that, despite having tabled amendments that we welcome, the fact that the Government are not yet willing to accept new clause 3 means that we will none the less end up with legislation that is more specific and particular. To assert different rights, one has to follow different procedures with different remedies and different appeals processes.


We are trying to make sure that we have a better educated and informed public who take more cognisance of the public debate, and that is not the way to go about it.
This will be the first United Kingdom-wide Freedom of Information Act, so it should clearly tell people what their rights are without them having to go round the houses finding clues about how to exercise those rights, and it should not require a degree in law or parliamentary draftsmanship to understand the legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope that, on reflection, even if we and the Government have to do more drafting work—which we are happy to do—by the time that the Bill gets to the other place, the Government will have included not only a purposes clause, such as the one that we debated earlier, but a clause similar to new clause 3.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 3, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. I was emboldened to table the new clause, which is similar to an amendment that I moved in Committee, because, at that stage, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said that he thought that the amendment was a good idea and he was sympathetic to its concept. However, he rejected it because he thought that, in spite of being a good idea, it would make bad law. I invited my hon. Friend to find out whether he could turn what he agreed was a good concept into decent law, and I am not sure whether he has been able to take up that challenge. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, we will find out whether he agrees with his ministerial colleague that the idea would make bad law.
There is an important concept behind the new clause, which follows from our previous debate about a purposes clause. The duty to assist in the new clause is aimed to help with the Bill's implementation. In our previous debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that the Bill was breaking new legislative ground and would require a new culture to be engendered throughout government and public authorities, and that it would try to promote a new culture of confidence, curiosity and self-empowerment among people. The new clause is particularly directed at individuals.
The Bill addresses different problems; it empowers individuals to gain control of their lives by finding out what information about them is held by public authorities. At the moment, they do not have the right of access to that information, and the lack of information often leads to enormous problems in their lives. The inhibition of not knowing the state of one's health and what is on one's medical records can curdle one's whole life.
When I introduced the Right to Know Bill nine years ago, people throughout the country wrote to me with specific, tragic stories of having been denied access to their medical records. A woman had been under a misapprehension about her health because of a conspiracy between her general practitioner and her husband. They had the well-intentioned aim of protecting her from knowing about the state of her health but, for 10 years, she had been denied the knowledge of her medical condition and how she could deal with it. When she gained access to that information, her whole life changed, and she was able to view her condition and her life in a different context.
The help that this Bill can give to individuals is very important, but it will be realised only if people genuinely have access to information and can make the legislation

work. All hon. Members know how complicated is the wording of Acts of Parliament, and the lawyers who advise companies, Departments and public authorities have difficulty enough interpreting the law, but individuals will find the Bill particularly unfriendly and difficult to understand. That is in the nature of legislation, so we should be doing everything that we can to make the Bill user-friendly and open.
Even if the Minister is not able to accept the new clause, I hope that he will today announce a commitment by the Government to put new resources into promoting it. Whatever form the Bill takes when it finally gets into statute, we should be proud of many aspects of it, and we need to promote it and make sure that people understand its aims and what it can do to change their lives and their grasp of their future. We must make it as easy as we can for them to realise the goods that could flow from the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will announce a programme similar to the one with which the previous Government backed their charter mark. They were very proud of that and put resources into advertising it. We need exactly that commitment from our Government to promote the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's genuine tribute to my right hon. Friend's citizens charter. I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's points.
I read carefully what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and he will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was the Front-Bench spokesman in Committee, was sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's points on these issues. However, when I was reading the report of the proceedings, it seemed to me that the Under-Secretary appeared to give pretty clear indications that the Government were sympathetic to those points. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it somewhat disappointing that the Government have not yet, despite those indications—they were not firm undertakings—accepted his arguments?

7 pm

Mr. Fisher: I live in hope that, when the Minister replies, there will have been a Pauline conversion on the road to the Report stage, but I am not holding my breath.
The Government have both a duty and an opportunity to promote the Bill. Placing a duty on the large number of public authorities, Government Departments and local government departments that are covered in the Bill to assist the applicant, is the least that we can do. It is the most sensible thing that we can do to ensure that the good things in the Bill are available to individuals. Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister was at great pains to say that we must make the Bill practicable. He is right, but one of the ways to make the Bill practicable for individuals is to include a duty to assist. It is partly a matter of the attitude of those authorities, but it also has to do with some specific problems in the Bill. There are many hoops to be gone through and barriers to be climbed before we give people the information that they want.

Mr. Bercow: Despite the hon. Gentleman's persistence and the eloquence of his advocacy over a long period, does he agree that a relatively small proportion of people


are, as yet, aware of the Bill? Would he care to hazard a guess as to the proportion of the good burghers of Stoke-on-Trent, Central who are aware of its imminent passage?

Mr. Fisher: I agree. The subject has not yet grabbed the imagination of people. We do not have a curious, demanding culture in this country. Colleagues on both sides of the House who travel to the United States will know that the attitude of individuals there is to ask, "Why not?" They ask questions and are aggressive towards the state and authority. They demand their rights. There is no such attitude here. It is something in the water supply or, perhaps, in our culture—our zeitgeist. We do not have such an aggressive attitude towards life.
By being much more passive and quiescent about the problems of the state, our citizens are denied their rights. The Bill seeks to address that, but the hon. Gentleman is right. I have had hardly a letter on the subject in 10 years. In fact, in 17 years in the House, I have hardly had a letter on it. It has not caught the public imagination, which is not to say that it is not important.
To look at the matter in a different way, many specific pieces of legislation on information in local government and medical records were passed under the last Conservative Government. They have not been grasped and taken up by individuals. That does not mean that they are not important. It just puts greater onus on us to make the Freedom of Information Bill, which is the parent of all those Acts and brings them together, work; to learn the lessons at last of why the other Acts have not been taken up by people, as they should have been; and to ensure that the Bill is taken up.
As I said in my previous contribution, the general tone of the Bill is grudging and reluctant. That is not just rhetoric. It contains specific barriers. Clause 1(3) entitles a public authority legally to turn down an inadequately identified request.
Many requests for information are by people who are learning how to use legislation. They will not be adequately identified. People will not always know how to be clever enough to phrase their request in the right terms, but that does not mean that the request is not valid. The information might be available to them, but the clause allows authorities to turn the request down. Far from being given a duty to assist, they have an opportunity to refuse.
Clause 7(1)(a) and (b) allow requests to be rejected if they are made orally, or if a correspondence address is not given. Those seem nitpicking reasons to turn down an otherwise valid application. The whole tone is against the applicant, rather than for him.
Clause 11 deals with cost. No cost is given or defined, yet if an applicant makes a request that will cost more than the Bill eventually determines, that will allow the authority to turn it down.
Under clause 15, a body from which information is sought is under no obligation to inform applicants of their right to appeal. Clause 50 allows requests to be rejected if an applicant is slow to complain, or suffered because of undue delay. Those are all specific things in the Bill that make it more difficult, rather than easier, for applicants to access information.
Given that those things remain in the Bill, surely they need to be balanced—I return to the Minister's earlier statement—by a duty to assist, so that, when authorities are presented with an application for information, they must be positive. They must go with the spirit of the application and help the applicant to get the application in order, if they possibly can.
The code of practice, which is mentioned later in the Bill, is a welcome development, but it is not statutory, so it will not be enforceable. The new clause would put a statutory duty on public authorities to be positive and to help an applicant to get information. Surely, that is what is behind the Bill—what we all want to be behind it.
I hope that the Minister will think again and give us some indication, if he cannot accept the proposal today, that between now and a later stage in the parliamentary proceedings on the Bill, the Government will see that it is a small gesture towards individuals who use the Bill. A statutory duty to assist would, however, send a big message that we were serious about getting the benefits of the Bill to all people.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) uttered a great truth: this is, indeed, about the balance of power. That is why it is a particularly important occasion for the Commons itself. The Bill tries to draw a line between the responsibilities and rights of Government but, ultimately, these decisions are ours.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) reprised some elements of a powerful debate that took place in the Standing Committee. There is a reason to commend it. Having read the Bill, the man or woman in the street would come away bewildered and in a state of incomprehension. It is not easy to read. People cannot read it casually and understand what information they can get hold of, what they may not get hold of, what their rights are or what routes are open to them. New Clause 6 adds greatly to the confusion.
I experienced a brief moment of ecstatic delight when I saw the Home Secretary come into the Chamber to speak to the Minister. I wondered whether he was inquiring about the meaning of some of the clauses. I do not say that glibly.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the balance of power. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central then talked about the climate in the United States and the view of citizens there about their relationship to Government. It made me reflect, but, in truth, in Aldridge-Brownhills the citizens' view of Government is not very different from that in America. It just so happens that the House of Commons is the last repository of deference in this country.
The Bill would not stand serious examination for more than two minutes by those who believe in freedom of information. It has great swathes of exclusions and all the rest of it, which make it very difficult to understand the Bill's purpose—hence, we wanted a purposes clause, clear and undiluted—or to find one's way through it. The grouping of amendments under the title "Procedural matters relating to requests for information" gives an intimation of how difficult it is to pursue a consistent theme.
The Government are rightly amending clauses 1, 9 and 15 and, through Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90, schedule 6. Changes are being made throughout the Bill


and a swathe of amendments has been tabled to deal with access to information, although I do not disagree that some of them are more or less useful. New clause 3 would create a binding duty on public authorities to assist people in exercising their rights. That is all. What is the big deal about that? In view of how extraordinarily difficult it is to understand the Bill, why would anyone oppose such a noble measure? It would assist the Government in the change of culture that they claim to seek.
In truth, I do not know why I bother to talk to Ministers as if they had any role to play. Somehow, the Bill has been removed from them and from the House of Commons to suit the demands of an unstated body, whether that be bureaucracy or Whitehall in general. As has been said in previous discussions, we have undertaken an extraordinary journey during our consideration, which started with sunshine and light and no one dissenting. A White Paper was proposed, we had a debate in Parliament and everyone congratulated the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and commended the Public Administration Committee for the worthy and deliberative report that was produced under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—that splendid Member of the House who is now the leader in Wales, God bless him—but here we are, in reduced circumstances.
So many compliments were heaped on the Government that they were embarrassed, but somehow, after a consultative process in which no one seemed to raise any substantial objections to the outline of the White Paper, we have ended up with this miserable little Bill. As well as being miserable, it is almost unintelligible to the people to whom it is meant to mean something.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but his remarks are rather general. He would do well to be a bit more specific with regard to the amendment.

Mr. Shepherd: Gladly, Sir, and I accept that rebuke.
I was referring to clauses 1, 9 and 15, schedule 6, Government amendments Nos. 89 and 90 and new clause 3. The need for assistance—a guide through the difficulties of the Bill—is implicit; indeed, it is self-evident. I would have thought that the Minister could have said, "We do not need to delay progress on Report. We gladly accept that our intention was to make such assistance available and we shall provide all the help we can to the citizens of the United Kingdom with what we think of as a flagship Bill." However, we have a mouse of a Bill before us. I recommend that the Minister read new clause 3, overthrow the view expressed in Committee by my good friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and accept our proposal.

Mr. Lock: I thank the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). How could I resist such an invitation?
The issue is not and never has been whether public authorities should
take all reasonable steps to assist
people who want to exercise their rights under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have said repeatedly that the Bill is being passed to

create a culture of openness, to give people a right to know and in order that it shall be used, not to set up barriers to prevent its use. We are not going through the motions without establishing a proper system for allowing freedom of information.
The issue between the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—both of whom have worked for many years, and for much longer than I have been a Member of the House, to promote freedom of information—is whether that is best achieved through either a statutory duty of the sort described in new clause 3 or the operation of a code of practice, as described in clause 44.
7.15 pm
There are a number of simple and, I am afraid, technical reasons why the drafting of new clause 3 leads to one of two conclusions: either it is so vague that it would not achieve the laudable aim that we all share, or its vagueness would result in a duty being imposed that may be appropriate for some public authorities but disproportionate for others. What does "all reasonable steps" mean for a primary school that has to respond to a parent's request for information? The duty on that public authority, or on a single-handed general practice, would clearly be different from that on a Department dealing with a complex request. A code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner under clause 46 would set out, cope with and reflect the assistance and the degree of flexibility required better than would a statutory duty.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central had to say. I have some sympathy for the way in which he put his case and I shall certainly reflect on it. I shall also ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I consider whether the duty to co-operate and to promote the underlying purpose is sufficiently reflected in the current drafting, whether the right way forward might be to strengthen the code of practice and whether there might be a way to introduce the issues that he raised, although not in that form due to the inflexibility that I mentioned.

Dr. Tony Wright: When my hon. Friend reflects on those matters, will he also reflect on why it is possible for many other, if not most, freedom of information systems around the world to include some kind of duty to assist? Usually, a commitment to reasonable assistance is expressed. If everyone else can do that, why cannot we?

Mr. Lock: We must operate within our own legal system, which is a common law system.
One purpose of the amendments, inasmuch as they point to specific occasions on which there is a need to respond—for example, when inadequate information is given—is to ensure that the way in which a public authority responds to a particular situation is defined and is adequate to provide assistance.

Mr. Fisher: Can my hon. Friend not see the irony in the fact that we are discussing the new clause because we found the code of practice introduced by the previous Government insufficient to address the problem, although it was well intentioned and had many laudable elements?


On the crucial matter of accessibility for the public, he is saying that he prefers a code of practice to providing a statutory duty. There seems to be an inconsistency.

Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend sums up the defects of the previous code of practice. What lies between us is not the end, but purely the means. Clause 44 already contains the requirement to include in the code of practice guidance on assisting applicants. We must consider whether that is the right place to direct a public authority to assist applicants, or whether that requirement should be taken from the code of practice and included in the Bill.
I have explained why a general duty in the Bill would not go any further than the code of practice and would cause problems for all types of public authority, whereas the code of practice itself is a more appropriate mechanism: it offers greater flexibility and can reflect the different types of public authority to which the Bill applies—a much wider category than that in the code.
My hon. Friend suggested that there was a defect in the system in that, to date, few people knew of their rights to apply under the code; we should thus do more to ensure that freedom of information was publicised; and that should be a duty on the commissioner. However, I point out that it is already a duty on the commissioner under clause 46(2).
My hon. Friend suggested that perhaps there was something in the water in Britain that prevented the public from knowing their rights. His constituents and mine are served by Severn Trent Water plc. However, although I certainly blame the company for overcharging and probably for making excessive profits, even I—as a critic of Severn Trent—could not go so far as to claim that it was dulling the inquiring minds of the populace.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do much work over the coming years, but he should not minimise how radical the measure is. One way of ensuring that people will not know of, or exercise, their rights would be to undersell the measure—to minimise the rights that it will grant by talking it down. I urge him not to do that.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. However, it is pitiful to observe him being obliged—as I suppose he is—to spout such transparent nonsense in opposition to the new clause. Does he not agree that the fact that the interpretation of
all reasonable steps to assist
will vary from case to case does not invalidate the notion that the Bill should include an obligation to take all reasonable steps? Is not the hon. Gentleman arguing that he is in favour of public authorities taking all reasonable steps to assist so long as they are not statutorily obliged to do so?

Mr. Lock: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman calls for a burden of regulation to be imposed on small authorities. We argued that the burden of regulation should be flexible and appropriate to the individual authority, not that it should apply uniformly to all authorities. If the hon. Gentleman understood the nature

of the imposition of statutory duties, he would realise that it is far more effective to ensure that the right amount of regulation is applied to authorities—an amount appropriate to their size and resources. That can be undertaken properly and flexibly only through a code of practice, not through a uniform statutory duty applying to all authorities in any circumstances.

Mr. Fisher: Will my hon. Friend clarify this matter for the House? Is he saying that the code of practice will specify the reasonable steps in each case—for a general practice, a primary school or the Health and Safety Commission? That would be a most voluminous and impossible document. Surely all we need is a duty to assist. We can argue about whether it is a code of practice or a statutory obligation—by now, my hon. Friend will have a clear idea of which direction the House wants the Government to take—but he cannot seriously be telling us that the code of practice will specify the degree of duty to assist for every authority of the 200-plus listed in schedule 1. That cannot be true. Before he digs a deeper pit for himself, I beg him to reconsider.

Mr. Lock: The code of practice will give broad guidance on what public authorities of different sizes and with different resources and obligations are required to do to give practical effect to the rights afforded in the Bill. That is a more flexible, appropriate and balanced way to ensure that those rights are enforced. I urge my hon. Friend to accept that that is better than imposing an all-embracing duty such as that set out in new clause 3.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister imagine that he is a first-year A-level student who is asked to state the rights and duties that flow from the Bill? If we consider clause 1(4), for example, we see that an answer cannot be given without huge complexity. Clause 1 includes a statement of rights, but there is no statement of duty. Will he reflect on the fact that the new clause offers a statement of the duty on public authorities? That could then be illustrated in the lovely code of practice, which everyone could have as an extra Christmas present.

Mr. Lock: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, the important point is that there are duties on authorities to comply with requirements and requests and that the authorities should ensure that they open themselves up. There is a statutory right to know and a duty on local authorities, schools and health authorities—all public authorities—to comply.
The narrow question between us is whether the duty to assist in all circumstances for all the authorities covered by the Bill is better expressed flexibly through a code of practice or through an all-embracing, one-size-fits-all statutory duty in the Bill. We may disagree on that point. However, even though the hon. Gentleman may not agree with the route, I hope that he will accept that the outcome—by virtue of the commitments made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me—will be the same, and that it might be in a form that is slightly better for all types of authority to handle.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO WHICH ACT HAS LIMITED APPLICATION.

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 4, leave out lines 12 and 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 34, in page 4, line 14, leave out "or amending".
Amendment No. 35, in page 23, line 7, leave out clause 43.
Government amendment No. 63.
New clause 5—Power to remove exemptions by order—
'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that—
(a) information of such description as may be specified in the order is not exempt by virtue of any provision of this Act as may be specified in the order;
(b) any provision of this Act specified in the order by virtue of which information is exempt shall be repealed or shall apply only in relation to information of the description specified in the order;
(c)any provision of this Act specified in the order by virtue of which the duty to confirm or deny does not arise shall be repealed or shall apply only in relation to such information, or in such circumstances, as may be specified in the order.
(2) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases.
(3) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Heath: This group is extremely important. The amendments and the new clause deal with a provision that crept into the Bill rather late; it gave the Minister extraordinary powers retrospectively to exempt information from the Bill.
The House might think that the Bill was carefully considered in Committee; that is certainly the view of those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. We may hope that the Bill will be given proper consideration on Report and during its subsequent stages; that its checks and balances will be carefully examined and that there will be a consideration of what information should and should not be exempt.
However, if the Bill's current provisions remain, all that scrutiny will have little long-term effect, because it will be open to a Minister—to the Executive—to say, "We heard what Parliament said; we know what was included and omitted from the schedule, but we have changed our minds and we want to amend the measure by order." That might occur not only if circumstances change since the measure's inception, but as a response to a specific request for information. A Minister could say, "I don't want that information to be made available, so we shall now make it exempt". Amendment No. 33 would remove the power, in effect, to exclude any information from any organisation listed in schedule 1 by order.
Amendment No. 34 deals with a similar point. A Minister might want to ameliorate the Bill, not by removing a current exemption but by amending the measure. Again,

the capacity exists to invent a whole new protocol for a specific area of information, and to do it by order rather than to take what I believe is the right view—that, if a certain category of information is no longer appropriate to be exempt, it should simply not be exempt. The exemption should be removed.
7.30 pm
In Committee, the Minister came up with no convincing argument as to why the Government should have the power to amend. He seemed to imply that the provisions were simply a matter of good housekeeping and that they would keep Bill's operation tidy. He said that, in any case, a benign Government and a benign Minister would judge what it was appropriate to amend, and asked why anyone should be concerned. I have real concerns, because I do not believe that every future Government and every future Minister are necessarily benign in their intent.
More importantly, I believe that the Bill is constitutionally important. We do not have a written constitution, so we must rely on legislation such as the Bill to provide our citizens with what rights they have. Those rights should not be fiddled around with at a later stage by a diktat from Government that would receive scant parliamentary attention if it ever came to the Floor of the House at all.
I want a one-way process of amendment. I accept that there will be occasions when information which it seemed right to exempt from the Bill will no longer appear as though it should be exempt. That is fair enough, so let us have a provision that allows a Minister to remove categories of information from the Bill. Let us have a semi-permeable membrane and a process of osmosis in one direction. Let us not have the capacity to tighten up a Bill whose provisions for genuine freedom of information are already far too unhelpful. If such a provision were available to a Minister, it could make the situation that pertains at the moment worse.
Amendment No. 35 deals with clause 43. We debated the clause in Committee and the tenor of the argument was, "We are all good chaps. We know how to operate these things. We can have substantial powers to amend legislation retrospectively because we will do the right thing, won't we? You will certainly know about it if we don't." I am sorry, but I think that clause 43 is bad. It will be slightly improved by Government amendment No. 63, which is a response to a point that I made in Committee.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated assent.

Mr. Heath: The Minister has been generous in acknowledging that, and I appreciate that the Government listened to one point that was made. However, the change is such a minuscule movement in the right direction in the context of the enormity of clause 43 that it does not satisfy me. The House should not accept that the retrospective powers available under the Bill should stand.
I will not go into detail on new clause 5, because I imagine that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) will wish to say something about it. However, everyone agrees that this is an important Bill. We must get it right and ensure that retrospective capacities are not built into it for no apparent reason. They have appeared since the draft Bill was published and they could be the avenue by which a wholesale rewriting of the Bill takes place at a later stage.
As I said in Committee, if I were a civil servant or worked for a public body and saw that a Minister had the capacity retrospectively to exempt information in my possession, I would beat a path to his door and tell him why all the information in my possession should, of necessity, be exempt. I would find any number of legal and other arguments to make that case. I do not think that it is necessary to have such a capacity in the Bill. It would be better without it. I urge the House to support my amendment.

Dr. Tony Wright: Clause 43 has been a cause of difficulty for a long time. It had a previous incarnation in the draft Bill as clause 36, where it caused no less difficulty.
The clause allows the Secretary of State to exempt information at short notice simply by order. That provision can be used to trump any request that the Government have received, but that they cannot refuse under existing exemptions. The Bill explicitly permits an order to apply to information that is the subject of an existing request—a request that has already come in. On any test, that is an unacceptable provision. Given the huge number of exemptions in the Bill, it is hardly necessary. It is not as though the Government lack protection. The restrictions are not so loose that they have to put a cover-all in the Bill. As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is narrowly drawn, so such a sweeping clause presents a difficulty.
When the Select Committee on Public Administration considered what was then clause 36, it found it unacceptable. It said:
We believe that it is altogether inappropriate to insert such a provision into a Freedom of Information Act. There is no such provision in any other Freedom of Information Act of which we are aware. We recommend that clause 36 is removed from the Bill.
The House of Lords Select Committee spoke in similar terms. It said:
We do not understand why, in a Bill with wide exemptions based on the class of information or the harm which its disclosure might cause, there needs to be a reserve power for a Minister to create a new exemption to deal with an unwelcome request for information, or why the new exemption should have retrospective effect to justify a refusal. In our opinion clause 36 should be deleted completely. If, despite this recommendation, the Government continues to believe that such a power is necessary, then it should be exercised in a specific situation only if the Information Commissioner agrees. At the very least the power should not be made retrospective.
The Government have ignored those recommendations and, in so doing, have sought to explain that the provision is necessary to give them what they describe as the flexibility to deal with particular circumstances and problems that may come to light.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, told the Committee considering the Bill that the Government needed clause 43 in its present form because
there may be some areas of information that have not yet been considered, but would legitimately need protection. The Government should also ensure that they are able to protect, in the future as well as now, all information that it would not be in the public interest to disclose.

One cannot accuse the Government of being dishonest. In rejecting an amendment that was designed to restrict the scope of the powers, he said that
it would limit unacceptably the operation of clause 43. The Government would not have sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 2000; c. 386.]
New clause 5 would introduce flexibility in another sense. One can proceed in two directions. One can remove the offending clause, which is the preferable solution as offered by an amendment. If the Government are not minded to do that, they should at least accept new clause 5, which simply provides the flexibility to remove restrictions. If flexibility is demanded, let everyone sign up to it.
Almost everyone who has spoken so far has argued that the Bill is laden with restrictions. If, in the fulness of time, Ministers discover that the sky does not fall in and realise that, in the new culture that develops, fewer restrictions and less onerous provisions are needed, it will be useful to have an order-making power that enables the gradual peeling away of some of the restrictions. New clause 5 allows the Secretary of State to provide that specified information is not covered by a specific exemption; it allows him to repeal a specific exemption, or to apply it more narrowly to specified information only; it enables him to replace a class exemption with a harm-test exemption; and it enables him to remove or restrict the right of authorities to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of information.
Were I in unworthy mode, I might say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; however, in worthy mode, I say that the new clause is cast in the spirit of flexibility that the Government say they want to introduce. New clause 5 will enable the Government to live up to their pledges and to strip away unneeded restrictions, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. David Davis: As the House knows, I do not approach the Bill as one who has a history of fanaticism about freedom of information. Given my periods of office in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Cabinet Office and the Whips Office—I would need only a period at the Home Office to have the full set of the most secretive Departments of State—my training has all been in the opposite direction.
I did not intend to speak on this group of amendments until I was provoked by the Minister of State's comments on the first group. He appeared to tell us that he disliked the idea of introducing uncertainty into the Bill—uncertainty in that context meaning allowing the courts to make decisions on the basis of the distinct purpose of the Bill. However, he is asking the House to accept precisely the same degree of uncertainty, except that it will be him or other Ministers making the decisions, not the courts.
Clause 43 is patently wrong and I shall not waste my time reiterating the powerful arguments that have already been made. Instead, I shall speak briefly about clause 6 and the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats that would remove certain parts of it. At first glance, the clause appears symmetrical, in that movement is possible in either direction; however, that is not how it would work. The first clue to that is that the power it contains is operated by order, not by affirmative resolution—not by a Minister coming to the House and asking whether we agree to changes, but by ministerial order.
That leads us back to one of the main forces that, in effect, gutted the legislation after the publication of the White Paper some time ago. That is the force toward secrecy prevalent in the Whitehall bureaucracy. I do not criticise individuals who work in Whitehall, because I believe that many talented, committed and public-spirited individuals work there, but I realise that the prevailing culture is such that it will lead clause 6 to become a one-way ratchet. I do not expect it to be used to extend freedom of information—quite the reverse. Let me give the House a brief example of such pressure.
Some years ago, my predecessor as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), attempted to bring into the public domain the massive overspends on the MI5 and MI6 headquarters. As the House will know, those matters were publicised only a couple of months ago; at that time, however, the right hon. Gentleman failed to persuade the Government of the day to allow those matters to be made public. I, too, tried and failed to persuade the Government of the day to do that. Eventually, the two of us, together with the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), managed to persuade the Government to concede the right to publish National Audit Office reports on the matter.
7.45 pm
One might have presumed that the secrecy arose from serious security considerations. It fell to me to approve the excisions from the two NAO reports: I can tell the House that they amounted to about half a dozen lines. Why did it take 10 years, three Privy Councillors, two ex-Ministers and three Select Committee Chairmen to get the Government to make the matter public? The reason was not political—it had nothing to do with which party was in power; it had to do with the interests of Whitehall. Those reports revealed that the Cabinet Secretary of the day, the permanent secretary to the Treasury of the day, the permanent secretary to the Property Services Agency of the day and the heads of the two secret agencies involved had all agreed, for two years, not to tell the Prime Minister what was happening. On that basis, they managed to resist publicity for 10 years.
I tell that story to illustrate my concern about this apparently symmetrical clause. The sort of pressures that, in the face of all our reasonable requests, combined to keep that matter under wraps for a decade by playing on the presumption made by most reasonable people on the other side of the argument that the reason was a security reason, whereas, in fact, it was an avoidance-of-embarrassment reason, will act to ensure that the effect of the clause is not uncertainty, but a one-way ratchet. For that reason, I commend the Liberal Democrat amendments.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall be brief. I entirely understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). Their amendments would remove the clause that gives the Secretary of State power to confer additional exemptions by order and to limit the legislation's application in respect of certain public authorities, and new clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to remove exemptions by order.
The Opposition have great sympathy with the amendments, because it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to have the wide-ranging powers conferred on him by the Bill to make information secret by order. We do not believe that the Government's concession is good enough: the Secretary of State should not enjoy such wide-ranging powers. I have no idea whether those who tabled the amendments intend to press them to a Division, but, should they choose to do so, the Opposition will support them.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, shall be brief in voicing my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and other hon. Members. I did not serve on the Standing Committee and, in that sense, I come fresh to the issue. I shall reflect on the importance of making the twin excisions to which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) referred: getting rid of clause 6(3)(a) and clause 43.
It is troubling that the Government want clause 6(3)(a) to remain part of the Bill and that we are contemplating allowing it to remain. It is drafted extremely simply:
The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1…by limiting to information of a specified description the entry relating to any public authority.
So the Secretary of State can say that freedom of information does not apply to certain types of information relating to any public authority.
Schedule 1 lists the bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to which clause 6(3)(a) applies. It lists seven general public authorities: any Government Department, the House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales, an Assembly subsidiary under the Government of Wales Act 1998, and the armed forces. Then the schedule lists 29 varieties of local government body in England and Wales and one in Northern Ireland, ranging from councils to fire authorities. There are eight health authority structures covering England and Wales, and six in Northern Ireland. There are 10 school authorities covering pupil referral units, nursery schools, colleges, schools and halls of universities, and five similar authorities in Northern Ireland. There are nine police agencies—the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and so on.
Part VI contains the greatest list of all. In an idle moment, I added up all the bodies. There are 341 public authorities in England and Wales, and 81 in Northern Ireland.
To go from the sublime to the ridiculous, the Government could suddenly excise the duty in relation to the armed forces, for example, which would be a huge matter, but they also seek to take to themselves power to restrict information relating, for example, to the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances, the Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites, the Apple and Pear Research Council, the Covent Garden Market Authority, the Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies, the Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine—

Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Not yet—the Great Britain-China Centre, the Place Names Advisory Committee, Sir John Soane's Museum, and the Unlinked Anonymous Serosurveys Steering Group.
To discover that those bodies exist is extraordinary. To discover that the Minister wants power to give such bodies, including the Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company and the Zoos Forum, the power to be exempted from freedom of information legislation, borders on the ridiculous. We must not allow the Government the power to keep the business of those bodies secret.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one or two of the bodies that he discovered in his detailed research deal with matters of great significance? When he considers the amount of taxpayers' money spent on Government hospitality, he will recall that grave concerns about that have been expressed from his Front Bench and from ours. Any Government are reluctant to be placed under scrutiny, so powers to exempt are extremely worrying.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's point applies to both ends of Government. The Government may want to cover up how much is spent on the drinks cabinet at No. 10, and they may want to cover up the advice given on BSE, drugs or international agreements. At both ends, it is dangerous. Of course there is a risk to the establishment, but there is no risk to good government, which is what the argument is about.

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in his delightful speech. Rarely do we hear a speech that is almost like a poem—a poem written by e. e. cummings, it seems. The House needed the light relief.
I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the bodies that he mentioned are likely to be subject to deletion, as they do not have sufficient weight or seriousness. He will agree, as probably the only hon. Member who has studied the list and counted all 341 bodies, that many are likely to have crucial information that may be embarrassing for themselves or for the Government. I refer to bodies such as the Defence Nuclear Safety Committee, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs, and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Does he agree that those all deal with matters about which the Government may want to delete great swathes of information when it proves embarrassing?

Mr. Hughes: Both hon. Members who have intervened have made complementary points. We are asked to give the Government ridiculous powers to deal with information that is held by relatively unimportant bodies, but that may be embarrassing, and also powers to take away the citizen's right in relation to crucial issues, such as defence contracts, the Sellafield debate, genetically modified food, drugs labelling and food safety. Those are all issues on which the public send us cards and letters every day, telling us that they want to know what is going on. That is why I hope that having set off, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, down a road that promised transformation of the system, the Government do not suddenly get cold feet and behave in a way that will embarrass only themselves.

Mr. Tony McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have much sympathy

with his argument, but with regard to a body such as the Meat and Livestock Commission, which is also on the list, there may be an experiment going on that the animal rights people want to target. We should be worried about possible danger, quite apart from embarrassment.
The very length of the list means that the Government do not have access to the detailed daily functions of each body. That is the reason for clause 6(3)(a). However, like the hon. Gentleman, I should like some assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that this is a provisional power which the Government will review some time in the future.

Mr. Hughes: In his last words, the hon. Gentleman may have touched on the rift. I would be comfortable with a procedure that allowed a Select Committee or a body of the House, at the instigation of a Minister, to look at the list each year and see whether bodies should be added or removed. I am troubled that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome argued at the beginning, the power would be given to one Minister, without Parliament's approval, and without any checking mechanism, to make a decision not just prospectively, but retrospectively, and possibly after someone has asked for the information. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is several powers too far.
Of course there may be concerns that certain matters need to be kept secret. There are national interests and national security considerations. Let us provide for that in a way that makes clear the guidelines and the parameters. Let us not allow a Minister, prompted by an over-cautious civil servant or a rumour in a newspaper, to say that information will not be available in relation to any organisation defined in the Bill as a public authority.

Mr. Brian White: In making his valid criticisms, has not the hon. Gentleman demonstrated one of the strengths of the Bill—the range of bodies to which it will apply, for the first time?

Mr. Hughes: Yes, if I felt securely that those were organisations about which I would have information, but no, if having given ourselves the right to get the information, we give the Minister the ability to take it all away—so yes if the information is secure, but no if it is insecure.
I did think that some light relief was needed. We have been here for four and a half hours, and we will probably be here for another four and a half hours tonight and again tomorrow. We are discussing serious business. The public should know the score. They need to know that the rights that they are getting in the Bill are not about to be taken away.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but it has become riveting. What provoked me to do so—I do not mean that pejoratively—was the intervention of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), when he said that this was a provisional measure.
That glorifies the nature of Government and ministerial knowledge. It will never be possible for Ministers to know what is going on in the 341 authorities listed, either now or until doomsday. That is one of the reasons why I


believe, putting myself for a moment in the shoes of government, there is such a tremendous desire to retain the capacity for secrecy.
Over the past 25 years, when secrecy has been blown for one reason or another, 99 per cent. of the time it has been of no account whatever, except in the positive sense of revealing to the public something that they ought to have known anyway. The number of occasions when such a blow to secrecy has led to consequences that could legitimately be said to have been damaging to individuals and their lives can be counted on the fingers of one hand. It seldom happens. That is why the obsession with secrecy needs to be challenged throughout the Bill wherever it appears.
8 pm
We must accept that the nature of government in western society—not only in this country—has been built on the secrets of government. That goes back over generations and centuries. The Government have had the courage to say in one breath that they want to do away with that secrecy, but in the next, they cannot quite bring themselves to do it. I hope that the Minister will have the courage to reconsider the implications. I am convinced that once the provisions are in place, they will be invoked. Apart from anything else, when they are invoked there will be no mechanism to challenge them. They can be invoked at will. If we are conducting a sea change in the way we conduct our affairs, we are doing so in an odd way by pursuing this route.
It has been said that there will be certain categories that will always need to be exempt. I agree with that, and I do not suppose that there is anyone in this place who would disagree. However, if the view is taken that the Government do not know what is going on, so they must retain a secrecy clause in case something crops up that in their provisional assessment require them to impose secrecy, we shall never get anywhere. I hope that the Minister will reconsider. We are dealing with a serious flaw in the Bill.

Mr. Shepherd: I shall take up the spirited and encouraging speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, in view of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak particularly to amendment No. 35, the purpose of which is essentially to delete clause 43. I give a cheer for "delete" because I think that it is one of the finest words in the legislative process. I commend those who have put their names to the amendment and I follow in their slipstream.
I want the House of Lords to read clause 43. I want the whole of Britain to be aware of what it provides. I also want the Labour party to read and inwardly digest what it says. The clause is a monument to imperial self-righteousness. We have not thought about how we can contain information in all its manifestations. We have not yet encountered the spheres in which the ingenuity and imagination of the British public may make inquiries. It is a dreadfully uncertain circumstance to be in, when somebody has the audacity to ask for a piece of information for which we have not made provision in the Bill.
We must take unto ourselves the ability to make an order. It is like Henry VIII, who had a clause that enabled him to say, "Whatever I say is law." The Government

take clause 43—remember the House of Lords, Britain outside the House and the Labour party—that provides that the Minister may make an order. Furthermore, in case the wretch who has asked for a piece of information asked for it yesterday, it can be stated in the order that it pre-dates whatever is the date of the application for the information. That is clause 43 in all its magnificence.
We have joshed about the vigour and imagination of the Americans. I admire them for many things, but they have an obsession with psychology and psychologists. They have developed an expression that is deeply distasteful but that has moved into British public forms of expression: "This is anally retentive." Let us be clear, the entire Bill is anally retentive. If anyone wants an instance of that, it is in clause 43. The splendid amendment No. 35 that says "delete" should commend itself to the House, the House of Lords, the wider public and the Labour party. I cannot believe that we think so little of ourselves and our constituents that such a remarkable power should even have appeared in a Bill in a democratic country.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have seldom heard such great fear expressed about what seem to be fairly benign and sensible clauses. I shall give some examples, as I did in Committee. Let us take the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We needed to create it, and if it had been a public authority, it would have been subject to the provisions of freedom of information if the Bill had been in place. We need provisions to enable public authorities to be created, to alter in terms some of their functions and for the Bill to apply. When they cease to exist, or parts of them, we need to be able to remove those public authorities from the Bill's provisions. If we do not have these provisions, we shall be in some difficulty.
I shall give another example that I gave in Committee. The BBC will be a public authority subject to the Bill's provisions. The BBC is particularly relevant here because its journalists will be able to claim an exemption from the provisions of freedom of information in respect of material held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature.
What if a court decision were to conclude that for particular purposes of definition areas that we might feel should remain the confidential prerogative of the journalists should be subject to freedom of information, and the journalists had to disclose their sources? I suspect that the BBC journalists would not be too happy about it and would want the Government to be able to act to deal with the situation. I suspect also that they would be mighty displeased if fears that the Government might misuse such powers had prevented the powers being in the Bill in the first place. That is my concern.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way when I have gone through some of the arguments. I recall that I promised in an earlier debate to give way to my hon. Friend, and I eventually did so. I shall do so again in due course. I shall run through the arguments so that we can properly debate the issue.
The effect of amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would be to deny the Secretary of State the power to make an order to limit information of a specified description in the entry in


schedule 1 relating to any public authority and the power to amend any such limitation. I understand some concerns. Some right hon. and hon. Members suggested in Committee that they were concerned that in future perhaps a less responsible Government, without our commitment to freedom of information, might abuse the order-making powers that are proposed in clause 6. The thrust of that concern was that large tracts of information might be removed at a stroke from the Bill by order, amending the entry in relation to a Government Department, for example, in part 1 of the schedule, or to any other entry or entries. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had a good time listing the possible changes. Some bodies may, in all innocence, be created, change, move on or be renamed. We should ensure that the Bill grants us the ability to do something about that. I understand hon. Members' anxieties.

Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall first set out my argument and then I shall happily give way to him and deal with his points.
I understand the anxieties but the fears on which some of them are based do not seem real. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would remove the power to limit or vary a limit in an entry in schedule 1. However, amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would go further than tackling hon. Members' anxieties. They would result in an all or nothing situation, with no scope for simple housekeeping changes to the small number of bodies listed in schedule 1 that are currently within the Bill's remit only because of the information that they hold. The amendments would also prevent future changes to existing entries in the schedule even when they were justified by a change in the circumstances of the public authority.
I shall give another example of the power's ability to vary or limit the description of information caught by the Bill. The Bank of England might decide to expand its financial activities to include insurance. The bank is already included in schedule 1 because of some of its functions. A decision would need to be made about whether to include the new business. Without the provisions, we could not make such a decision.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that orders under clause 6 to remove information from the scope of the Bill were retrospective. That is not the case. The order-making power should not be confused with that under clause 43, which I shall consider shortly.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) claimed that clause 6 provided for orders but not affirmative orders. Amendment No. 77 tackles that. I therefore hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman at least on that point.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also suggested that the Government could retrospectively allow a public authority that wanted to keep a secret to do that. That is possible, but only by an affirmative order after consulting the commissioner, whose view will be published. An order to create an exemption can be made only when specified prejudice applies or when the public interest requires an exemption to be made. An order

cannot therefore be made on the quiet. The clause does not provide for a ministerial power but for affirmative order procedure. Members of Parliament will be able to maintain a clear check on the Executive.
We have tackled many anxieties about clause 6. Many of those anxieties are unrealistic. We believe that the restrictions for which amendments Nos. 33 and 34 would provide are too severe. The amendments go too far and are therefore unacceptable. The lack of a power to amend an entry by order to reflect changes in the functions of the authorities that schedule 1 lists would mean that the entries in that schedule would be fixed for all time. That would lead to inflexibility and undermine the basis of the Bill.
We have listened to the views expressed in Committee, especially by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and we have tabled amendments Nos. 77 and 81, which deal with parliamentary procedures for orders under clause 6. We shall have an opportunity to debate them later. We hope that they will allay some anxieties.
I shall deal with amendments Nos. 63 and 35 and then I shall take interventions. Amendment No. 63 was inspired by an amendment that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome tabled in Committee. The Government agreed to consider the wording of that amendment and gave an undertaking to table an amendment on Report.
Clause 43(6) required the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner before making an order under clause 43 to create a new exemption. Amendment No. 63 would require the Secretary of State to publish any written representations to him by the Information Commissioner about the consultation before laying an order before Parliament unless the representations contained exempt information or information that would be exempt if the order were made. The Government accept that requiring the publication of the commissioner's representations would increase openness. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked for such a provision and the Government have listened and acted.
However, there may be circumstances in which such publication would result in the disclosure of exempt information or information that would be exempt if the order were made. We believe that it is necessary to provide protection against such an eventuality. Amendment No. 63 would therefore achieve that.
Amendment No. 35 would delete clause 43. The clause enables the Secretary of State to create additional exemptions by order. The clause includes two distinct order-making powers, which relate to two distinct circumstances. First, the Secretary of State can make an order about specific information, but only if the public interest in creating a new exemption outweighs the public interest in its disclosure. Achieving that balance shifts the argument and tackles the anxieties. We must consider the public interest when creating a new exemption.
The Secretary of State can create a general exemption that does not relate to a specific item of information. In that case, the order must be so expressed that it provides exemption only if disclosure would be likely to have adverse effects on the public interest. In such circumstances, the adverse effects must be specified in the order.
The Government believe that it is necessary to retain a mechanism for creating new exemptions. There may well be information that has not yet been considered due to the number of authorities—up to 50,000—that the Bill covers—

Mr. White: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way in due course.
The nature of information that will fall within the scope of the provision will be wide ranging and may legitimately require protection. The Government must ensure that they can protect that information in future as well as now.
Let us consider the sort of information that we are discussing. The commissioner will know the information that will be subject to an order under clause 43. Her representations may include references to the information when she determines her view. It is right for that information to be outlined. The power to confer additional exemptions can be exercised only if the Information Commissioner is first consulted. When amendment No. 63 is accepted, the Secretary of State will be required to publish any written representation that the Information Commissioner makes to him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have considered their powers relative to those of the commissioner in other clauses. Is not there an overwhelming case that the commissioner should have the right not only to be consulted, but to have the final say? If the commissioner had the final say, everybody would be more reassured. However, the Government, backed by their party in Parliament, have the final say. The commissioner is simply an adviser.

Mr. O'Brien: We either have some respect for the House or we do not. The hon. Gentleman is trying to shift power away from those, like him and me, who are democratically elected to do our job in this place to those who are not democratically elected. There is a danger of enhancing an unfortunate democratic deficit. Enough already exists in this country. I am reluctant to accompany the hon. Gentleman down that road.

Mr. Mackinlay: I want to raise two police matters that relate to schedule 1. The Minister referred to the Stephen Lawrence case. I invite him to pause and consider that we passed the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which will remove from hon. Members the opportunity to probe what are deemed to be police authority matters. The Stephen Lawrence case is especially relevant in that respect. In the early stages, when hon. Members were arguing that something was wrong, they were able to table questions in the House by virtue of the fact that the Home Secretary is the police authority. If the incident had happened in Essex or Kent, they would not have been able to do that. We are losing that power under the GLA Act, and this Bill lists certain police authorities.
If the Stephen Lawrence case had occurred after the GLA Act and this Bill had come into force, we probably would not have heard of Stephen Lawrence, because we would not have been able to get some of those questions past the stewardship of the Table Office.
That is my first point. My second point is this.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an extremely long intervention. The hon. Gentleman must be very brief on his second point.

Mr. Mackinlay: During both the Conservative Administration and this Labour Administration, I have expressed concern about the privatisation of some police forces. Some important police authorities, such as the Northern Ireland airport police, cannot be included in the schedule—it is neither in nor out. If it is good for police authorities to be included in the Bill, why has the Minister excluded some important police authorities that do not fall within the ambit of a public body?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On my hon. Friend's second point, we need the power to extend the provision if we consider that to be appropriate. The Bill contains a power to extend and include provisions. I refer him to clause 74.

Dr. Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No. I am just about to come to my hon. Friend's point.

Dr. Wright: On this point.

Mr. O'Brien: With respect, I have not answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), so perhaps my hon. Friend will let me answer it before I give way to him. I was about to deal with the issues he raised on new clause 5. I shall be happy to give way if he wants to intervene later.
On the Lawrence inquiry, questions could be asked under the GLA Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is wrong about hon. Members not being able to be ask questions about the Stephen Lawrence case. Our view is that the Bill would have substantially assisted the Lawrence family in dealing with that case.
New clause 5 will give the Secretary of State the power by order to remove or limit the application of any exemption in part II, or to remove or limit the exemption in respect of the duty to confirm or deny that that information is held. An order made under the new clause would require the affirmative resolution procedure.
I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) has felt it necessary to table this new clause, which could be seen as complementing the power under clause 43 of the Secretary of State by order to confer additional exemptions. However, I cannot support it for the simple reason that it is not necessary.
If a public authority wishes to release information to the general public or to any individual, nothing in the Bill prevents that. Clause 76 contains a specific provision that nothing in the Bill will prevent a public authority from disclosing information that it wishes to disclose. Nothing in the Bill requires secrecy. There may well be provisions in other legislation that prevent disclosure, but not in this Bill. I should point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that clause 74 provides an order-making power by which those other provisions may be repealed or amended. We are committed to considering such statutory bars and to introducing orders as appropriate.
The Bill provides the right of access to information, and specifies some circumstances in which the right will not apply. It does not serve to keep anything secret.

Dr. Wright: I do not want to cross swords on this point. My hon. Friend is confusing the issue of removing structural restrictions with a more general point.
My hon. Friend began to give us a treatise on the nature of democracy, and I am sure that we shall hear more of that later. Democracy has something to do with the wishes of the people. If people were offered a choice between the creation of additional exemptions by ministerial order and the creation of exemptions by ministerial order with the agreement of an independent information commissioner, which does my hon. Friend think the people would choose?

Mr. O'Brien: The people of this country want to ensure that those who are directly accountable to them are able to do the job that they are elected to do. I am personally very uncomfortable with some of the arguments that have been voiced about the need to give unequivocal power to the Information Commissioner. It worries me that hon. Members are anxious to convince the electorate so as to get elected to the House in order to do something, but are then desperate to hand over the power to do things to unelected people.
I accept that we give judges a particular role. As a result of clause 13, judges will have a strengthened role. That provides the right checks and balances in relation to freedom of information, and enables both those who are unelected but have an official role and those who are elected to do their job.
The order-making power proposed in new clause 5 is unnecessary. I ask the House not to support the amendments, but to support the Government amendment, which deals with the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). We have listened to his concerns, and have responded to them in so far as we are reasonably able to do so. However, I cannot promise that some future Parliament will not abuse or misuse the legislation. We cannot bind future Parliaments: that is part of the price of our constitution and our democracy.
The Government believe that the safeguards in the Bill provide constraints, and we would not seek to abuse them. The provisions that we are including in clause 43 and clause 6 are relatively benign. They are housekeeping measures, and we should not get overly worried about them. We should ensure that we have good laws that work, and that can accommodate changing circumstances as a result of the creation of new public authorities, or when bodies cease to exist or change their internal functions.

Mr. David Heath: The Minister ended by saying that he would not be able to prevent a future Government from misusing or abusing powers. I agree, but it does not seem entirely sensible to give a future Government the instruments that would enable them to misuse or abuse the very legislation that we seek to introduce.
We have had an extremely interesting debate. Most speakers have prefaced their remarks with the phrase "I did not intend to speak, but…". It seems that they

were moved either by a sudden burst of enthusiasm for the subject under discussion, or by the realisation of exactly what the Minister proposed. It is also instructive to note that not one felt moved to support the Minister's view, and the powers that he chooses to take.
I agree that amendment No. 63 is a move in the right direction, and I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the arguments, but the amendment represents the most minimal move that he could make. I thank the Lord that I have secured some movement from the Government on the Bill, which has been improved slightly by our proposals in Committee and by what the Government have brought back today, but the minimum has been done to give a veneer of respectability to a power that would otherwise have no respectability. I do not accept for a moment that the Government have gone far enough.
If I inadvertently suggested that retrospective powers applied to clause 6, I apologise. That was not my intention: when I referred to such powers, I was speaking to the whole group of amendments and the new clause.
What I considered to be one of the most interesting contributions was that of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who suggested that this might be a provisional power. I would love it to be a provisional power. We would have no reason to table amendments if we could believe that the power would expire in a little while so that the Government could check that they had got the legislation right and bring it back to Parliament, but that is not the case.

Mr. McWalter: As my name has been taken in vain a couple of times, let me point out that—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees—the powers in clause 43 could easily wither on the vine.

Mr. Heath: I would love to see a piece of legislation with a self-destruct gene built into it, allowing elements to disappear if they were not used after a while. Unfortunately, that is not the way in which legislation tends to work. Once the power is in place—once the hon. Gentleman has voted to support it, if he chooses to do so—it is there for Ministers to use until Parliament decides otherwise.
The Minister's defence was similar to his defence in Committee. It was that these were benign provisions, enabling him to ensure good housekeeping. He suggested that they were necessary because some of the bodies listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) might need to be added or removed. In fact, that is done by clause 3; this section deals not with bodies but with the information that they hold, and with whether it is exempt from the provisions in the Bill.
The Minister was unable to give examples of his concerns—concerns that we could consider, and either include in the Bill or not. He wants to have an undefined power to pass, with the help of a docile House of Commons, an order restricting the power of the citizen to gain access to information that he or she wants, and even to frustrate the will of the courts. Let us suppose that a court reached a decision with which a Minister did not agree. Where would we be if that Minister could not change the law immediately, in order to frustrate the will of the court?
I am not sure that that is acceptable. I could have accepted it if the Minister had proposed a review that would enable the Houses of Parliament to do their job properly in discussing amendments that must be made to allow a review of the classes of information that are exempt, but he has not done that; he wishes to persist with provisions that give him or his successors powers to make retrospective legislation. I cannot accept that, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 319.

Division No. 142]
[8.33 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hague, Rt Hon William


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hammond, Philip


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hawkins, Nick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heald, Oliver


Ballard, Jackie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Horam, John


Bercow, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Body, Sir Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Keetch, Paul


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Brady, Graham



Brand, Dr Peter
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Breed, Colin
Kirkwood, Archy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Letwin, Oliver


Burnett, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burstow, Paul
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Llwyd, Elfyn


Collins, Tim
Loughton, Tim


Cotter, Brian
Luff, Peter


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Madel, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maples, John


Evans, Nigel
Mates, Michael


Faber, David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fabrteant, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fearn, Ronnie
Moore, Michael


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
Oaten, Mark


Fraser, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gale, Roger
Öpik, Lembit


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Page, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Pickles, Eric


Gray, James
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Green, Damian
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Randall, John


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Redwood, Rt Hon John





Robathan, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Robertson, Laurence
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Ruffley, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


St Aubyn, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Sanders, Adrian
Trend, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyler, Paul


Shepherd, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wardle, Charles


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Webb, Steve


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Streeter, Gary



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Sir Robert Smith and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Tom Brake.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)



Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ashton, Joe
Clelland, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coaker, Vernon


Austin, John
Coffey, Ms Ann


Banks, Tony
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cooper, Yvette


Begg, Miss Anne
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cranston, Ross


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Best, Harold
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Betts, Clive
Darvill, Keith


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dawson, Hilton


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dismore, Andrew


Bradshaw, Ben
Dobbin, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Doran, Frank



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Browne, Desmond
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caton, Martin
Foulkes, George


Cawsey, Ian
Galbraith, Sam


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Galloway, George


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Church, Ms Judith
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda






Godman, Dr Norman A
Macdonald, Calum


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grant, Bernie
McLeish, Henry


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWilliam, John


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric


Hanson, David
Maxton, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Merron, Gillian


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hesford, Stephen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hill, Keith
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoey, Kate



Home Robertson, John
Mountford, Kali


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
O'Neill, Martin


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Illsley, Eric
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jamieson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Jenkins, Brian
Pike, Peter L


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Plaskitt, James


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Primarolo, Dawn


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prosser, Gwyn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Rammell, Bill


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rogers, Allan


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rowlands, Ted


Linton, Martin
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Salter, Martin



Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil





Sedgemore, Brian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Shaw, Jonathan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Timms, Stephen


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Tipping, Paddy


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Todd, Mark


Singh, Marsha
Touhig, Don


Skinner, Dennis
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)



Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Ms Joan


Snape, Peter
Ward, Ms Claire


Soley, Clive
Wareing, Robert N


Southworth, Ms Helen
Watts, David


Spellar, John
White, Brian


Squire, Ms Rachel
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wood, Mike


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Woodward, Shaun


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9

TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH REQUEST

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in page 5, line 23, after 'subsection', insert `(1A) or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 103, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
'(1A) Where the authority has notified a third party in accordance with section (Notification of third parties) that it has received a request for information which relates to the third party's commercial interests, the third party shall have a period of 10 working days to make representations in accordance with section (Notification of third parties) (1)(a), and that period of 10 days shall he disregarded in calculating for the purposes of subsection (1) the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.'.
Government amendment No. 101.
Amendment No. 99, in clause 41, page 22, line 36, at end insert—
'(1A) Information is exempt information if it was supplied to a public authority by a company or other commercial organisation before the coming into force of this Act'.
Amendment No. 37, in page 22, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
`(2) Information is exempt information if it was supplied to the authority in confidence by any person and its disclosure under this Act would unreasonably prejudice the commercial interests of that person.


(2A) Information is exempt information if it has been consistently treated as confidential by the authority and its disclosure under this Act would unreasonably prejudice the commercial interests of the authority.'.
Amendment No. 31, in page 22, line 38, after "to", insert "substantially".
Amendment No. 38, in page 22, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) Information is not exempt by virtue of subsection (2) if or to the extent that—
(a) it relates to the quality or safety of the goods or services produced or supplied by the person referred to in that subsection or the conditions under which those goods or services are produced or supplied; and
(b) the prejudice to that person's commercial interests would result from the exercise of more informed choice by persons seeking to acquire those goods or services,
unless the information is inaccurate.'.
Amendment No. 32, in page 22, line 41, after "to", insert "substantially".
Amendment No. 104, in clause 50, page 26, line 41, at end insert—
', or whether representations made by the complainant in accordance with section (Notification of third parties) have been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of that section.'.
Amendment No. 98, in clause 62, page 31, line 19, leave out ",40 or 41" and insert "or 40".
New clause 8—Extension of meaning of "data subject"—
'.—(1) Section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (basic interpretative provisions) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In the definition of "data subject", after the word "individual" there is inserted "or company".
(3) The definition of "personal data" is omitted and the following words are inserted—
"personal data" means data which relate to—

(a) a living individual, or
(b) a company (but only where those data are held by a public authority),
where the individual or the company can be identified from those data, or from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual or company and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.".'
New clause 9—Notification of third parties—
'.—(1) Where a request for information is received by a public authority and that information relates to a third party's commercial interests the public authority shall—
(a) without delay notify the third party of the request for information and the extent and nature of the information relating to the request and give the third party a reasonable opportunity to make representations regarding whether the information requested falls under an exemption as listed in Part II; and
(b) have due regard to any such representations before discharging the duty to confirm or deny and before communicating the information or giving a notice under section 15.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a) "third party" means anyone other than the person making the request of any public authority; and

(b) information shall be taken as relating to a third party's interests if that person provided the information to the public authority, is identified in the information and is reasonably likely to be affected (at any time) by disclosure of the information or of its existence.
(3) Where, after due regard has been given to any representation made in accordance with subsection (I), a public authority is to any extent not relying on a claim that information is exempt information in reaching its decision, the public authority must, without delay, give the third party a notice which—
(a) states that fact;
(b) specifies the exemption in question; and
(c) states why the exemption does not apply.'.

Mr. Hawkins: The Opposition consider this group of amendments and new clauses to have special importance. When the Under-Secretary dealt with this matter in Committee, he cited the interests of business—including small business—in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). It seems that the Under-Secretary may not respond to the debate, although he is in the Chamber. However, I wonder whether the Government may be embarrassed by the fact that they are flying in the face of the interests of business, both small and large.
When the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was winding up the debate on the previous group of amendments, he had an exchange with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about the question of self-destruct mechanisms. It struck me that the idea of mechanisms self-destructing came from a television programme entitled "Mission Impossible". Given the lack of support enjoyed by Ministers this evening, it is clear that the Government are embarked on just such a mission with this Bill, so it is not surprising that they reject the idea of self-destruct clauses.
However, I shall begin with the matters covered by new clause 8, which is linked with amendments Nos. 102, 103, 99, 98 and 104. The Data Protection Act 1998 gives companies—small or large—no rights to ensure that information held on them by any public authority is correct.
The Bill would give the public wide powers of access to information on any company that works with any public authority. The amendments in this group would broaden the scope of the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that companies have the same rights as individuals to ensure that information held on them is correct.
That is simple justice. For example, information held on people by credit reference agencies causes great unease, but individuals have the right to ask the agency what information it holds about them. They can correct what they can prove to be wrong.
We believe that freedom of information demands a degree of reciprocity in this regard. Companies need to be able to ensure that the information held on them is correct. When he responds, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether he can think of any good reason why companies should not have the right to check.

Mr. White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the original US freedom of information legislation contained no provision such as he proposes? After several court cases, that element became a key part of the US legislation.

Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was aware of that aspect, and I was going to speak about


the history of what has happened in other jurisdictions. However, the hon. Gentleman and I have served on the parliamentary information technology committee, and I know that he shares my interest in matters such as data protection.
As I said earlier, I may be the only hon. Member to have conducted cases under the Data Protection Act 1998 in the courts. However, once again, the Opposition's argument has the support of a Labour Back Bencher, who I hope will join me in pressing Ministers on this matter. We have yet to hear a Back-Bench Labour Member supporting the Ministers on any of these matters. Once again, the Minister is under friendly fire from his own side. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is absolutely right, and I am glad to have his support. I hope that many other Labour Members will also support the idea of simple justice.
If business organisations do not have the right that we propose, incorrect or inaccurate information on companies, be they small or large, could be released into the public domain following a freedom of information request under this measure. We believe that any freedom of information legislation should mean that more information relating to the dealings between public authorities and business is released as long as, and only so long as, that information is accurate. Therefore, our welcome for the Government's proposals is subject to the exemption of information that could harm a commercial interest and to our concern that businesses must have a right to check on the accuracy of the information and correct it if there are mistakes. Because of accident or incompetence—not malice—records may, on many occasions, be incorrect. Things may be mistranslated. In many business fields, the accuracy of record keeping cannot be perfect. If more information is to be released, it must be checked for accuracy.
Under the Bill, a third party that may be affected by the disclosure of information has no right to be notified of any application for disclosure. Once again, we think that that is wrong. We believe that third parties should be given the right to be notified, in advance, of any application for disclosure that may affect them. It is also vital that third parties should then have the opportunity to make representations on whether that information is covered by an exemption. Can the Minister think of any good reason why that should not be the case? In no way would new clause 9 give commercial organisations a veto over whether information should be released. It simply means that no company, small or large, would have to rely on an action for breach or confidence or other legal remedy after the information was disclosed. We think it wrong for any company to seek to shut the stable door after the horse has well and truly bolted.

Mr. Lock: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. Will he let me know two things? First, where does new clause 8 provide that information shall be disclosed only if it is accurate? Secondly, how is a public authority to judge whether information that it holds is or is not accurate in a dispute about its accuracy? [Interruption.]

Mr. Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said from a sedentary position,

this is not a difficult argument to follow. If the Minister will be patient, I will, I hope, address the points that he has raised. However, it is for the hon. Gentleman to respond to our suggestions. If he is prepared to come back, tonight or at a later stage, or even in another place, and deal with our amendments and new clauses in a different way, addressing the issues, we will be very pleased. We are not suggesting that all our proposals are perfect. However, we have done our best, working with business organisations, to address the issues. If the Minister says that he is prepared to address these vital issues—as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham helpfully said, they are not difficult—we will consider carefully what the Government propose. So far, however, there has been no attempt by the Government to address our concerns over the Data Protection Act 1998, reciprocity, the notification of third parties and the rights of companies, small or large.
Business organisations are concerned about that matter. For example, the CBI, which the Government are keen to cultivate, said:
Individuals are protected by the Data Protection Act. But what protections are there available to business? Under the Bill as it currently stands, business does not even have a statutory right to be notified when sensitive information about that business is to be disclosed. It has no right to object to its disclosure, no right to appeal the decision and no right to apply for compensation.
To return to the helpful point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, all those guarantees are provided by the United States Freedom of Information Act, as they are in Australia.
The Minister must justify the Government's failure to learn from experience in other jurisdictions. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East said that that the same error was initially made in the United States, and had to be corrected after many battles. Why are the Government repeating such mistakes? The Government claim to be a friend to business, but the CBI certainly does not think so. Unless the Government change their mind and accept our amendments or something akin to them, they will upset business seriously.
Business must be certain that any Freedom of Information Act will contain safeguards to ensure that damaging or commercially sensitive information is not be released.

Mr. Bercow: The potency of my hon. Friend's argument should be clear to all hon. Members, with the possible exception of the Minister. Does my hon. Friend agree that protection is especially important for companies because, unlike individuals, they have no recourse to the ordinary laws of libel?

Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Like me, he has worked with many business organisations, particularly the Small Business Bureau and the Federation of Small Businesses. Small businesses with limited financial and legal resources are particularly hard hit by the Bill. I do not doubt that the Minister, who has practised law for many years, will have represented many business organisations, and I wonder whether, if he thinks about it for a moment, he is terribly comfortable with what his ministerial superiors have asked him to put before us tonight. We shall wait to hear from him.
Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are connected with the proposed new clauses, and insert a period of 10 working days. We are not proposing a massive change, or a lengthy period. The Minister will find it difficult to say that there is anything wrong with that.
Amendment No. 99 deals with a matter vital to any Member of Parliament. I do not exaggerate by saying that one of the first principles learned about Parliament by any schoolboy or schoolgirl is that there should be no retrospective legislation. Hon. Members on both sides—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) sits on the Labour Benches, for example—have frequently spoken of the serious problems raised by retrospective legislation, yet the Bill applies retrospectively. Information supplied by business to any public authority before the Bill is enacted would be covered.
9 pm
All hon. Members will understand from their dealings with any business, small or large, that businesses require stability, and an important part of that is ensuring that the laws that apply to a business's actions will be the same as those that applied when the business originally took those actions.
All the advocacy that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I can command leads us to say firmly that the Bill should not apply retrospectively to commercial information previously provided to the Government, voluntarily or as required by statute, on the basis of assurances of confidentiality, because that information was, by definition, provided under a different regulatory environment. It is wrong in principle for the Government to say that information provided 10 or 20 years before the Bill is introduced will be covered.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend further, but does he agree that there is an analogy between the argument that he is advancing and the position on the disclosure of information provided to journalists in confidence? Earlier, it suited Ministers to say that it would be wrong to put journalists in a position of having to divulge information with which they were provided on a confidential basis. If that is so, surely the same principle applies, as my hon. Friend has eloquently argued, for businesses, which have divulged information on the basis of assurances of confidentiality.

Mr. Hawkins: Once again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is certainly not troubling me at all; I greatly welcome his intervention because he, like me, was carefully listening to an earlier debate. He is absolutely right to draw that parallel and point out that Ministers cannot put forward, on these amendments, an argument that is inconsistent with their earlier arguments. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
It is important to say that, even if the Government were to accept our amendments and new clauses or something akin to them—now, at a later stage, or in another place—that would not totally veto any such information from the past being released because there would still be a provision or exception allowing the Information Commissioner to recommend that information given in the past should be released in the public interest. Our amendments would not mean that such information could

never be released, so we are being moderate and reasonable in proposing this control and preventing retrospection.
It is important for the Bill to set a precedent so that businesses can carry on giving information to public authorities in the knowledge that the rules will not change again in the future. I recognise that the Government cannot bind their successors, but the point of the Bill is that the Government are encouraging the greater provision of information. If they make it more difficult for businesses to trust them, they will find that businesses are far more reluctant to provide information to public authorities or to the Government themselves. We strongly argue that the amendment is in everybody's interests.
The Campaign for Freedom of Information may not often share objectives with organisations such as the CBI, but it is unlikely that those who are arguing, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have done for many years, for the provision of more information would want business, as a result of the Bill, to be much more reluctant to provide information to the Government or a public authority.
Amendment No. 98 deals with the availability of historical records, and is connected to the argument for the previous amendment. As I have said, the Opposition believe that more information should be released, but it is also important to recognise that business must be protected from provisions that could result in commercially sensitive information being placed in the public domain. That information could affect the very existence of small or even medium-sized businesses.
The Bill contains an exemption for information that would prejudice the commercial interests of a commercial organisation. We accept that. However, under part VI, any information covered by the exemption would be released after 30 years as an historical record. Amendment No. 98 would ensure that sensitive commercial information would not be released automatically after 30 years. It is a little like the rules in relation to Cabinet discussions and such matters.
We believe that the contents exemption to ensure that damaging information is not released is sufficient. If information is not damaging to a commercial organisation, it should be released. However, if it is judged that the information covered by the exemption and release is not in the public interest, it should not automatically be released after 30 years.
It is perhaps a double safeguard: a double negative. There is a danger that, if companies knew that, whatever information they supplied to public authorities would be released to the public, even after 30 years, it might yet again affect the frank and open relationships that the present, or any future, Government would wish to have with business.
I deal briefly with some of the amendments from what has been referred to as the cross-Bench group of hon. Members: Nos. 37, 31, 38 and 32. We want the Government to explain their amendment No. 101 in dealing with the cross-Bench group's amendments, which raise important issues. I do not want to deal with them in detail because others from the group will do so adequately, but the points are extremely serious.
I return to the point that the Minister made earlier. We do not claim that everything in our amendments or new clauses is perfect. There may be ways in which the


Government, parliamentary draftsmen and Government advisers can improve them. We want the principles underlying these four matters to be dealt with: the protection of companies under the Data Protection Act; what has been sometimes called reverse freedom of information, although I prefer to call it reciprocal freedom of information: notification of third parties; avoiding retrospective legislation; and historical records, where a public interest test should be added.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said about principles and about the information that is to be held, or not held, disclosed or not disclosed. Can he help me by giving an example of what information should be held for a longer period?

Mr. Hawkins: It is difficult to give specific examples, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand. Under the Government proposals, something would normally be released after 30 years. I put the question back to him. Is it not sensible to have a public interest test, so that, if a company says, even after 30 years, that there is still a public interest in not disclosing that, it will not happen? It might severely embarrass someone's personal life.
As the hon. Gentleman and most hon. Members will be aware, family matters can be connected with the operation of family companies. Personalities are involved in such companies. Disclosure could be deeply embarrassing for that family, even after 35 or 40 years. A public interest test could be built in as an additional safeguard. We are talking about all companies, not just multinationals; that may be where the media focus, but it applies to all companies. I hope that I have given close enough to an example to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rogers: It is not close enough. I cannot think of any information that needs to be withheld, for example, with regard to a private family company and that might be subject to a public interest test. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could give a more substantial example of the information that could not be disclosed.

Mr. Hawkins: I am not sure that I can help the hon. Gentleman any further. I was trying to deal with something that could arise, but it is not just the Opposition Front-Bench team that thinks that it is important. Those matters have been raised with us by the CBI on behalf of its members. I hope that he will realise that it is not doing that for the fun of it. It thinks that there is a serious purpose here.
In summary, the amendments deal with important issues and we hope that the Government will take them on board.

Dr. Tony Wright: I come at the issue from a different angle, although I am trying to follow the arguments being made from across the way. To me, clause 41 looks like an extraordinary blanket exemption and, as a citizen and a consumer, I would like it to be tested more rigorously. Let me give a recent example so we realise that we are not talking about abstracts.
Before Christmas, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions a couple of questions: which MOT testing

stations were on a final warning from the vehicle inspectorate and which garages had lost their licence to carry out MOT tests in each of the past five years? I shall compress the answer by reading the essential sentence:
To publish the identities of Authorised Examiners withdrawn from the scheme could be prejudicial to any of their other business interests unconnected with the MOT testing scheme and therefore a list of those withdrawn from the scheme is not published.—[Official Report, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 530W.]
That is how commercial prejudice provisions operate in respect of something that might matter to us. Indeed, when I received the figures, I discovered that last year 143 of those establishments had their licence withdrawn and 1,058 were put on a final warning. Over the past five years, 767 had their testing licence withdrawn and some 6,701 had been warned. We are not having some arcane argument. We must consider whether an exemption for commercial interests should be extensive or blanket or whether that exemption should be tested.
The problem is that the exemption is wholly unable to be tested against public interest considerations. Clause 41 applies to any information from any source. There is no sense that what is protected is information that belongs even to a particular company. A public authority could withhold test results obtained from its own laboratories or from independent sources. The information need not even be confidential. Information previously released by the authority or by the company could be withheld. A company might have disclosed information for one purpose and yet want to withhold it under that provision for another. The exemption would permit that, and it puts the avoidance of commercial prejudice above all other considerations. That is the fundamental point.
Companies or authorities that behave badly should be prejudiced, which is the whole point. That is exactly what a public interest consideration is designed to do. The Bill allows information to be withheld to protect companies from facing the consequences of their own malpractice. It is not difficult to find examples of how that might work. The absence of a binding public interest test will deny the public the essential safeguard in that respect. Of course we know that we have to protect proper commercial interests, but that must be balanced against a workable public interest test.
9.15 pm
Of course, an authority could reveal exempt information if it chose to do so, but sometimes authorities fail to recognise that there is any public interest in telling the public what is going on, or they might have a direct incentive not to disclose because they could incur criticism as a result. The discretionary nature of the test opens the door to collaboration and collusion between regulatory authorities and companies.
The exemption is unsustainably broad when compared with similar provisions in other freedom of information legislation. Amendments No. 37 and 38 would simply insert a public interest test. Commercial interests are important and need protection, but they must be weighed against other matters. That is the sensible course to take.
Amendment No. 37 would raise the threshold—it would allow information to be exempted on grounds of commercial prejudice. To become exempt, information would have to be supplied in confidence and would have to prejudice unreasonably the commercial interest of the person who supplied it or of the public authority holding it.
Amendment No. 38—my preference—would ensure that information relating to the safety of goods and services or information that would lead to consumers making a more informed choice could not be exempted on commercial interest grounds. I am not one of those who thinks that commercial interests do not matter, but I do think that commercial interests and their protection need to be balanced against other interests—especially those that protect consumers or allow them to exercise proper choice based on full information. At present, the clause offers blanket exemption, but that needs to be balanced. The amendments offer that balance.

Mr. David Davis: I reiterate the points that I made earlier. Freedom of information is about better-informed debate, a strong democracy and a better-performing Government. The amendments bear an important relationship to that.
I do not want to talk at length about the Conservative amendments, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). He raised some important issues of principle. I am glad that he told the Minister that he would accept other draftings of the amendments. Although the principles of accuracy and reciprocity in freedom of information are significant, I shall not dwell on them.
Like the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I want to make some observations in support of amendments Nos. 37, 31, 38 and 32. Earlier, I referred to my ministerial experience, but I was in business for twice as long as I was a Minister. If it is true that between two thirds and three quarters of what is claimed as secret really is secret, a large fraction of the remainder—what is described as secret merely to prevent embarrassment—comes under the category covered by these provisions.
When I was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, the use of commercial confidentiality in government prevented me from answering parliamentary questions and debates as I wanted to do. That was because civil servants said, "You can't say that, Minister; it's commercially confidential." I came to the view that, in many cases, it was not so much commercial confidentiality as avoidance of embarrassment.
That view was reinforced rather than weakened by my business experience. The demands made of Government by many businesses were greater than any made of a large private sector customer. I am talking not only about Great Britain, but about north America. In both cases, businesses supplying a major customer under contracts similar in size to those for Governments would fully expect that, for example, pricing information would be in the public domain, because that customer would need to be able to say to a competitor, "You have to beat this price, or this quality or this service level." There has been much disingenuous argument by businesses and it has not served them, the British economy or the British taxpayer well. It has become a serious issue for reasons that I shall come to shortly.
My point about an inappropriate exercise is not undermined by the Minister's comment that 60 per cent. of American inquiries on freedom of information are raised by commercial companies. We should understand that America is a different economy; it is much more vigorous on competitive issues than the British economy. Apart from being highly competitive, the economy has

different competition laws in which businesses are forbidden, on pain of prison sentence, to talk to each other. I operated in that environment and, in such an environment, any source of information on a competitor is chased vigorously. Therefore, the comparison does not apply here. It is clear that the freedom of information arrangements in America have not stopped it being the most vigorous economy in the world; the reverse is true. There are many massive contracts between business and government in the United States.
The principle behind the amendments is important. I hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends, but I do not wish to concentrate on them. I want to focus on the fact that the previous Government and this Government have taken on board the private finance initiative, contractualisation and a whole swathe of measures that put the delivery of public services very much more in the private sector than ever before. One danger of that is that it takes the delivery of public service out of the reach of Parliament and accountability to the House.
Partly because of that, delivery of the service is also taken out of the reach of the individual citizen. The brilliant example of the testing stations given by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase showed perfectly in a single parable how important the issue is. It will get more important over time as the Government bring the private sector into education, into health eventually—I am sure that it will happen—and into all the sectors that matter to both sides of the House. Therefore, it is crucial that the information that relates to the provision of services in those sectors is not hidden behind a commercial confidentiality barrier.
The issue comes up even before the Public Accounts Committee. When members of the Executive give evidence, we often hear them say, "We can't tell you that because it is commercially confidential." In most circumstances, the Committee does not tolerate that response. Of course information is sometimes commercially confidential but, when we press the point, more often than not the argument is used as an avoidance of embarrassment clause. For that reason, I strongly support amendments Nos. 38 and 31.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and to support his point that commercial confidentiality is often cited as a means of avoiding embarrassment.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). The definitions of commercial confidentiality in the Bill are too widely drawn and do not take into account the wider public interest. It could be argued that the Bill draws the definition more widely than the one that is currently used. However, commercial confidentiality often provides an opportunity not to answer a question, especially if that question has the potential to embarrass.
I shall use an example that I first cited on Second Reading. On 8 November, I put a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport seeking information about sales of tickets to the dome—a matter of some contention, especially just before Christmas. The information was not available at that time, and I received a holding answer stating that I would receive a proper answer as soon as possible.
On 21 December, in response to further parliamentary questions asking why it was proving so difficult to say how many tickets had been sold in various places, I received an answer stating that the Department had tried to answer my question in
as open a way as possible—[Official Report, 21 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 562W.]
but that my questions could not now be answered because the matter was commercially confidential. It had apparently taken more than six weeks to determine that there was a problem of commercial confidentiality in answering questions about how many tickets to the dome had been sold in various parts of the country.
I received a letter, dated 26 January, that went into more detail about why the matter was commercially confidential. It stated that the New Millennium Experience Company
recognises its public remit and responsibility, but it is the professional judgment of its Board that…targets can only be met if the company operates in a commercial manner. NMEC is competing in the crowded and highly commercial market place of visitor attractions and its competitors do not publish detailed statistics of forward sales.
Taking that at face value, I wondered why the company later published a sales survey that illustrated where tickets had been sold and where they had not. I could not understand why the real figures were commercially confidential, but a survey illustrating where sales were most likely to be made was not.

Mr. Lock: May I refer my hon. Friend to a couple of provisions in clause 41 that illustrate how the structure works? Information that is commercially confidential under clause 41(2) would fall within the category of exempt information only if prejudice to commercial interests were also likely. Even if that were so, the ability to refuse to disclose would apply only if the company or the public authority overcame the second barrier set out in clause 13, of carrying out the balancing act between the public interest in disclosure and the public interest in confidentiality. The Bill, once enacted, will greatly enhance the chances of confidential information such as my hon. Friend describes—and to which, in my view, he is perfectly entitled—being disclosed.

Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that intervention, especially for saying that I am perfectly entitled to the information. I wonder why, in our joined-up Government, I am not getting it from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
I asked the Library for its opinion on whether the Bill would make my obtaining the information that I sought any more likely. The answer was that it was at least as unlikely that I would get the information, so long as the Minister concerned chose to agree that the information was commercially confidential. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the Minister's intervention, which I will quickly quote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in the hope that the answer for which I have been waiting for five months will eventually be delivered. I am glad that the intentions of open government have percolated to the Lord Chancellor's Department, if not to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Mr. Lock: I should not lead my hon. Friend to premature joy. Unfortunately, until the tests set out by the Bill are incumbent on Ministers, Ministers must operate under the present regime. That is more restrictive than the regime that we propose to introduce under the Bill. It is causing the blockage of which my hon. Friend complains, and I sympathise.

Mr. Jones: That is one interpretation of the difficulty in obtaining the information that I require.
My argument may be regarded as unduly cynical, but if the ticket sales for the millennium dome and the associated public expenditure—almost £1 billion, or possibly even more—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says from a sedentary position that that was lottery money, meaning that it is not public money. It is the public's money. If that is not a valid question to be raised in Parliament, I do not know what is.
If the figures showed an even distribution of ticket sales across the country, somehow I think that not only would I have got an answer, but it would have been published prominently. The real reason that I have not been supplied with the answer for such a long time is that it is publicly and politically embarrassing. The purpose of the Bill should be to ensure that Ministers cannot hide behind commercial confidentiality to conceal their embarrassment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I shall add one point to comments made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and then say a word or two about amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
I refer to the protection that the Bill appears to give to the commercial interests of the private sector and to the public sector. The debate is about amendments to clause 41, which deals with commercial interests. The clause states:
Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret
or
if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
That is the breadth of it.
Much more of what was the public realm is going out into private hands—for example, parts of the Prison Service are being run as private prisons. It is nonsense for the Government to promote policies such as naming and shaming—by announcing that school X is on special measures, school Y is not performing well enough, or the SATs tables for school Z are this, that or the other—but not to put into the public domain commercial information about a private organisation that may potentially run a school in the future or perform some other function in government.
The legislation is going in contradictory directions. Public policy is moving many more things into the private sector, yet we are giving the private sector greater protection than the public sector. That is fundamentally inconsistent. The examples given by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and others are clear about the difficulties and the extremely subjective definition of what is in somebody's commercial interest and what the test is. I hazard a guess that the figures for the number of tickets


sold for the Dome in different parts of the country may not have been available when the hon. Gentleman asked for them in a parliamentary question because they had been managed by the promoters and owners of the New Millennium Experience Company on a monthly basis, so that they could package them in other information. To some extent they have revealed the information, but in their own time and on their own terms.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: No.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says no, but certainly the promoters and owners have tried to manage the information. They did not go as far as he thought, but they have been trying to control the information so as not to allow it to come out when the hon. Gentleman was seeking it. He may wish to correct me.

Mr. Jones: The information that has been released relates to total ticket sales. I was seeking information on regional ticket sales. There may be a good or better story to tell for the one but not the other. That is why we have only one piece of information.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that. There are two sides of a coin. We have information only on total ticket sales, but even that has been managed. Had the hon. Gentleman asked questions about the general and the particular, he might have found that he did not receive information about the general when he wanted it because it was being managed for a time that was convenient to the commercial interests of the company.

Mr. Hawkins: I must apologise to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) for not hearing what he said. I was briefly absent from the Chamber. However, a fascinating example has been given.
Does the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) agree that another form of packaging in this instance—it is often wise to stick to the same example—may be the difference between ticket sales that were at no cost and ticket sales that raised money? I suspect that, with school trips being brought forward and schools being offered free trips, the Government, in this context of managing information, are treating as ticket sales tickets that were offered free of charge, and that that will emerge later when the Dome accounts come to be examined. I suspect that information has been packaged in a way that is not really proper.

Mr. Hughes: That is certainly a possibility.
Four of the amendments before us are in two groups. Interestingly, they were described by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) as cross-Bench amendments. It is an interesting concept that once we have a coalition in this place, we shall become cross-Benchers and depoliticised.

Mr. Hawkins: Cross-party groups.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that the hon. Gentleman meant that.

Mr. Rogers: It is not so difficult for Liberals.

Mr. Hughes: No, it is not so difficult for Liberals.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 seek once again to ratchet up the threshold. They are simple because they seek to insert "substantially" as the prejudice test. We shall come later to what the prejudice test should be generally in relation to the public sector. The amendments seek to ensure that we get that test in the private sector. Potentially—I refer to clause 41—there would be prejudice to
the commercial interests of any person
if almost any information were revealed. So far, both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have heard nothing from the Minister to suggest that the test does not effectively allow the maximum concealment of information and the minimum threshold possibly available for people who have to pass it.
This issue may not be put to the vote tonight, but I urge colleagues to say that, if we are to have the ability to get information about the public sector elsewhere in the Bill, we must ensure that clause 41 has parallel provisions. In the interests of a traditional or old-fashioned view about commercial interest, we should not lack awareness of the modern world in which people regularly seek and obtain information and act accordingly on the basis of other people's commercial practices. We must not give protection to the commercial sector that is not given elsewhere.

Mr. Bercow: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making about the alleged disparity of treatment between the public and private sectors. To approach the issue from a slightly different vantage point, does he agree that commercial organisations should have rights that are equal to those of private individuals to know exactly what information is held about them at a given time by a public authority?

Mr. Hughes: I agree with that proposition. I do not want to get distracted, but there are different tests for individuals' rights to information and protection of privacy, and the rights of corporate organisations. The same harm is not caused to a corporate organisation as can be caused to an individual. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the right to know what information is held should be guaranteed.
We are considering yet another example of the Bill failing to get it right. The Government bizarrely resist change and defend interests that are not theirs, or are not usually those of the state. I hope that they heed the widespread all-party view, which, for the fourth consecutive debate, shows that it is them against the rest. It would be surprising if all the rest were wrong.

Mr. White: I shall not support the amendment that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) tabled, no matter how often he prays me in aid, because, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), I am a serial loyalist. That is why I am grieved about amendment No. 7 and new clause 6, which we shall consider later.
We have not learned the lessons of what happened in the United States. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made about commercial confidentiality are correct; we have not got the balance right. Evidence to the House of Lords said that there would be a code of practice, which would set out a duty to consult with commercial interests.
The Bill will lead to much litigation about breaches of confidence. I suspect that those on the Front Bench are happy about that because they are lawyers. However, that is the wrong way for the Bill to develop. There is a problem in achieving the right balance between commercial confidentiality and the release of commercial information. The Minister should reconsider that balance.

Mr. Rogers: I am confused about what is in hon. Members' minds when they present their arguments. The easy method of separating public interest and commercial confidentiality and the interests of private companies has been blurred substantially in recent years. I was a spokesman for defence procurement for a time. Trying to get to the heart of enormous defence contracts and finding out what was happening to billions of pounds of public money was impossible. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, knows that even members of that Select Committee cannot gain information on specific aspects of public procurement.
Private finance initiatives have been extended. Huge projects are being introduced. The right hon. Gentleman knows about them. Where is public accountability and consideration for the public interest in those matters? The Government have got it almost right. They are trying hard to bring all the secrets and conspiracies out of the closet. They are trying to expose the cosy relationship that existed between the previous Government, of which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was a distinguished member, and private industry.
Under the previous Government, we witnessed the revolving door syndrome whereby civil servants and military defence people left government only to appear the following day on the boards of big companies that had just been awarded contracts. I should hate to make even a rough calculation of the number of Conservative Members who shifted out of Government posts and landed on the boards of big companies. There is a lot of hypocrisy—[Interruption.] I am not pointing the finger at anyone. A lot of hypocrisy has been shown in the debate. I have still to hear any concrete reasons for why companies should have a 40-year exemption from having to divulge information when there is a lower limit for highly sensitive aspects of national security.
I do not claim that the Bill is perfect. It may well have to be amended and tested in the courts. However, most legislation evolves in that way, especially on subjects such as that which we are discussing.
I shall support the Government on this issue, and I hope that most of my hon. Friends will do the same. I am not sure what these cross-party alliances are about. We have seen them in action in the Welsh Assembly, so we know what a disaster they are. I can tell my hon. Friends that inclusive politics has run its course. With all due respect to the Liberal Democrats, these days they are merely on the side.

Mr. Lock: This has been an interesting and good debate. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. We are dealing with amendments that

confront the complex issue of how to deal with commercially sensitive information and information provided in confidence.
Before I address the amendments in detail, I refer hon. Members to the structure of clauses 39, 40 and 41. Clause 39 deals with information that is exempt if it has been provided under a legal duty of confidence. If at the time that the information was provided—or subsequently, because of the circumstances—there was a legal obligation of confidence, that information is exempt and is excluded from the balancing act under clause 13.
By definition, information under clause 41 is information that has not been provided by the public authority under a legal duty of confidence to respect the confidentiality of that information and not to disclose it to third parties.
Clause 41(1) refers to information that constitutes a trade secret. A trade secret is a well known term of art in-law. Clause 41(2) refers to information being exempt
if its disclosure under this Act…would be likely to…prejudice the commercial interests of any person.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the Bill includes a prejudice test—a harm test. The Confederation of British Industry asked for a harm test, as opposed to a substantial harm test:
We believe the test for disclosing information should be one of simple harm and not substantial harm. Any attempt to limit the ability to withhold information to that which may cause substantial harm to a business may prevent the voluntary disclosure of information to Government. Without proper assurances, we do not consider that the Government's approach will achieve the objective of two-way openness and trust.
We have listened to the CBI, which is why the harm test in clause 41(2) is not a substantial harm test, as has been suggested.
Even if the information would prejudice a company's commercial interest, clause 41 comes within the balancing public interest test under clause 13, as I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). The relevant provisions are in clause 13(3) and(4), which deal with the balancing act to decide whether the public interest in disclosure is greater than the public interest in confidentiality. That can be judged only according to the circumstances of the individual case.
I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 37, 38, 98 and 99. We are faced with two conflicting sets of amendments. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would restrict the amount of information to which clause 41 applies, whereas amendments Nos. 98 and 99 would increase the amount of such information. The Government are in the middle, and all I can say with confidence is that these two sets of amendments cannot both be right.
I shall take the four amendments in turn, and then explain why the Government have taken the middle path between them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who made a thoughtful contribution, will accept that we are addressing the problems that they have raised but by a slightly different route.
Amendment No. 37 is a complex amendment which would restrict the exemption either to information that had been supplied in confidence and whose disclosure would unreasonably prejudice the supplier's commercial


interests, or to information that had been treated as confidential by the authority and whose disclosure would unreasonably prejudice the authority's commercial interests.
That represents a change from the Bill as drafted, in two respects. First, there is the introduction of the concept of unreasonableness to the prejudice test; secondly, there is the question of the status of the information—whether it has been supplied or held in confidence. The amendment would restrict the commercial interests that could be taken into account to those of the supplier of the information or the authority itself, which is highly limited.
I consider the amendment unnecessary, inappropriate and too restrictive. It is unnecessary because information provided in confidence is already covered by clause 39, and therefore does not need to be covered again by an amendment to clause 41. It is inappropriate because it introduces the concept of unreasonable prejudice. The distinction would be difficult to make in practice. We agree that some such concept is required, and that the mere fact that information might prejudice a commercial interest is not enough to justify the restriction of the information per se. The public interest test arises not in the context of unreasonable prejudice, but through the application of clause 13 and the balancing act required therein.
In that respect, amendment No. 37 is unnecessary, but it is also too restrictive. It seeks to limit the exemption to information whose disclosure would unreasonably prejudice the commercial interests of the supplier of the information, or the authority itself. That ignores the issue of information that is supplied in confidence by one person, but whose disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of a third party. For example, a trade association might supply a public authority with commercial information about a firm. The disclosure of that information would have no effect on the trade association, but it could have a devastating prejudicial effect on the commercial interest of the firm. We must recognise the need to protect third parties' commercial interests when it is in the public interest to do so, but not otherwise—hence the requirement for clause 13 to apply.
The amendment is over-restrictive, in that it requires a public authority to have consistently treated the information as confidential before being able to invoke the commercial interest exemption where it would be the authority itself whose commercial interests were prejudiced. That would provide a very narrow exception, and would place an undue burden on public authorities in the managing of dealings with suppliers, private finance initiative contracts and so on. A range of information might in particular circumstances, at a particular time, prejudice an authority's negotiating position or the public interest in regard to value for money; but at other times, when it would not do that, it might be disclosed perfectly properly. Information that authorities have at one time will not necessarily be inappropriate for disclosure at another time. Again, that is a requirement of the balance provided by clause 13.
The amendment also fails to take account of circumstances in which an authority itself has generated information, but its disclosure would prejudice the commercial interests of another party. Such information could include, for example, expert forecasts of whether a business were likely to succeed, or opinions on whether it were properly managed. The amendment would remove

protection from such material, which it is necessary from time to time for public authorities to generate, especially when considering whether to enter into a PFI contract.
We must remember that there is no locus—no standing provision—for the seeking of information. We should bear in mind the experience of the United States. I accept what was said by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, but I am sure that some commercial entities will seek the information. Not to allow the disclosure of such information when it is prepared with a view to analysing the commercial competence of a company would be prejudicial, and would not constitute the proper exercise of a freedom of information regime.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to limit the exemption further by disapplying it when information relates to
the quality or safety of the goods or services produced or supplied by the person
who supplied the information in confidence,
or the conditions under which those goods or services are produced or supplied;
and when
the prejudice to that person's commercial interests would result from the exercise of more informed choice by persons seeking to acquire those goods or services.
Information that relates to the quality or safety of goods or services, however, may include, for example, manufacturing processes by which the quality or safety of a particular product is assured or a firm's plans for promoting or marketing a particular product when the quality or safety are to figure in the promotion. Such information would be of interest primarily to a firm's competitors rather than to the general public. The Government's view is that a freedom of information regime should not allow one company to steal a march on its competitors merely because, for one reason or another, information had to be passed over for the operation of a proper regulatory regime.
Amendment No. 38 is unacceptable also because the phrase
conditions under which those goods or services are produced or supplied
is capable of over-wide interpretation. It could range from manufacturing processes to conditions in supply contracts and marketing plans. Again, it could include information that would be not only of great interest to a firm's competitors, but not in the interest of the general public to know.
The second limb of the amendment seeks to set out the purpose of the disapplication—the exercise of more informed choice. However, that is also capable of very wide interpretation. Factors affecting consumer choice include price, quality, the product's environmental impact, origin, and location at the point of sale, how it is marketed and many other factors. The effect of the second limb would be to remove the protection of exemption from any commercially sensitive information that touched on those or other factors.
We think that that range of information is too wide, and that the better route is through the public interest balancing test, in clause 13—in which those factors can


be taken into account, although the existence of any one of those factors does not preclude considering the overall balance in determining whether it is in the public interest to disclose that information.
Amendment No. 38 also requires the public authority to make a judgment on whether the information is accurate. However, the authority may not know whether the information is accurate, and the cost ceiling for charges made under the freedom of information regime is designed only to cover finding and retrieving the information. The public authority should not have to go to further unlimited lengths in verifying the accuracy of information. If information is disclosed by a public authority under the duty and is subsequently found to be inaccurate, the manufacturer could subject the decision to legal proceedings, thereby placing severe burdens on a range of public authorities on whom the duty was placed. I remind hon. Members that the provisions of clause 13 apply, and that those are the better route.
By contrast with those two amendments, the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, amendments Nos. 98 and 99, seek to restrict the scope of the exemption. I shall be able to consider those amendments with greater brevity.
Amendment No. 98 would have the effect of allowing the exemption in clause 41 in relation to commercial interest to apply in perpetuity. That is unnecessary. The circumstances of commercial life change so rapidly that the Government are simply unable to foresee any circumstance in which a company's commercial interests would still require protection after 30 years. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for raising that issue with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who could not think of a single example to justify the amendment. That fact alone should persuade hon. Members that the amendment should not be supported.
Amendment No. 99 would effectively introduce a new exemption that would apply to information that was supplied to a public authority by a company or other commercial organisation before the Freedom of Information Act came into force. That formula is capable of extremely wide interpretation. The amendment would cut swathes through the Bill and would in part reverse the policy of retrospection in relation to commercial information alone, although of course clause 13 would still apply. That would be nonsensical, as information should already be available under the non-statutory code of practice on access to Government information that was introduced by the previous, Conservative, Government.
The fact that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is making that proposal demonstrates his own view on the strength of the code that the previous Government introduced. His view seems to be that any obligations to provide information under the code are not to be relied on; that companies that have not sought to rely on those obligations can be ignored; and that we should start at year zero with the Freedom of Information Bill. We do not take that view. It is not a workable system. There will be a reasonable lead time before the legislation takes effect. Companies know what the regime is and should have known since 1994, when the code was introduced.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That at this day's sitting, the Freedom of Information Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Lock: Hon. Members might be interested to know that when the code was introduced there was no such ban against retrospective action. The Conservatives are asking for a measure that they did not consider sufficiently important to include in the code that they introduced.
The amendments pull in opposite directions. Some of them would reduce the scope of the exemption to increase the rights of consumers at the expense of the rights of business. Those amendments would deter firms from sharing commercial information voluntarily with public authorities. The other amendments place prime importance on the rights of business at the expense of the citizen's right to know, which would disadvantage the general public.
That shows how difficult it is to balance the right to know with legitimate rights to privacy and confidentiality. The Government are taking a mediating role between those two opposing sides and ensuring that the public interest is properly taken into account through the operation of clause 13. As a result, particularly after the amendments to the provisions governing disclosure in the public interest, the Government have ensured that freedom of information will make a difference to consumers while ensuring that it will not unduly damage the commercial position of private companies or individuals.
The Bill will for the first time give consumers a right of access to a wide range of information. It will ensure that information is released when that is in the public interest. Freedom of information will lead to better informed and more involved citizens, while giving the commercial sector certainty in conducting its business, confident that the Government will not attempt to know its innermost workings.
I was going to deal with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central but he is not in his seat, so I shall pass on. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 would introduce the word "substantial" to the exemption. It is difficult to place a specific meaning on the term "substantial" or to quantify the amendments' practical effects, but as I said earlier, that is not what the CBI wanted. If the word means a lot or a great deal, information that was damaging to a lesser extent would have to be disclosed with no need to show that the public interest required such damage to be caused. That is unacceptable. It would clearly be irresponsible and would not provide a proper balance between the public interest in disclosure and the maintenance of the exemption. The qualification of the term is unnecessary. The Government have consistently said that "prejudice" means prejudice that is actual, real and of substance. It is an ordinary word


used without qualification in many Acts. The word is also familiar to the courts and those involved in the day-to-day interpreting of legislation.
We must not forget that the judgment of whether the disclosure of commercial information would be prejudicial to a given interest will not rest with the authorities. The commissioner and the tribunal will be required to consider individual cases to determine whether there is prejudice. If the commission reaches the view that there is no prejudice, the public interest test does not apply and the information must be disclosed.
Under amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104, companies would have to be given information in advance if their rights were to be affected. Public authorities will consult third parties, where such rights exist, to protect themselves from the threat of legal action. At present such rights must be enforced by the third party at its own risk. The Government do not consider that it would be right or necessary to create a new route for the enforcement of private legal rights, the costs of which would fall on the public purse. Where there are no legal rights at present, the Bill does not create new ones. It would be good practice for public authorities to consult third parties if they might be affected by a disclosure, but a statutory duty to do so would be cumbersome and onerous.
For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendments and I hope that they will not be pressed.

Mr. Hawkins: I shall be extremely brief—unlike the Minister, who solemnly read out his advisers' note.
The Minister said that the Government have listened to the CBI. We say that they have clearly not listened hard enough, as they are rejecting proposals that are vital to the interests of business.
The Minister claimed that he was steering a middle course between the amendments tabled by the cross-party group and those tabled by the official Opposition. However, that is disingenuous, as the Bill came before any amendments were tabled by anyone. To paraphrase Tennyson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade", there are cannon to right of the Minister, and cannon to left of him, but he charges on—on to perdition and destruction.
The Minister said that the code instituted by the previous Conservative Government did not deal with retrospection, and claimed that as some sort of justification for what he is doing. However, does he not understand that the Bill amounts to retrospective legislation? There is all the difference in the world between dealing with retrospection by means of a code, and dealing, by means of an Act of Parliament, with retrospective effect.

Mr. Lock: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the code is fundamentally weak and that it has no effect? Is he worried about this matter because the legal rights contained in the Bill have legal value, while the code does not?

Mr. Hawkins: No, of course that is not what 1 am worried about. I am saying that business is right to be worried when any Government—and this Government in particular—introduce legislation with retrospective effect. The Minister knows the arguments put forward by the Opposition, the CBI and other business organisations.
The Government are plainly wrong. They are flying in the face of all the views expressed by business and the Opposition. I invite Conservative Members, and members of the cross-party group as well, to support the amendments, which we intend to press to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 347.

Division No. 143]
[10.7 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hammond, Philip


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Harvey, Nick


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hawkins, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Heald, Oliver


Ballard, Jackie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Horam, John


Bercow, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Blunt, Crispin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Body, Sir Richard
Jenkin, Bernard


Boswell, Tim
Keetch, Paul


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia



Brady, Graham
Key, Robert


Brake, Tom
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brand, Dr Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Brazier, Julian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Breed, Colin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Llwyd, Elfyn



Loughton, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McIntosh, Miss Anne



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Collins, Tim
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Cotter, Brian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cran, James
Madel, Sir David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mates, Michael


Duncan, Alan
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Evans, Nigel
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Faber, David
Moore, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fearn, Ronnie
Nicholls, Patrick


Flight, Howard
Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Oaten, Mark


Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fox, Dr Liam
Öpik, Lembit


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Randall, John


Gray, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Green, Damian
Rendel, David


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence






Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ruffley, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


St Aubyn, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Sanders, Adrian
Trend, Michael


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyler, Paul


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tyrie, Andrew


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wardle, Charles


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Webb, Steve


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Stunell, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Stephen Day and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Peter Atkinson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Church, Ms Judith


Alexander, Douglas
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
/Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin, John
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Banks, Tony
Clelland, David


Barnes, Harry
Clwyd, Ann


Barron, Kevin
Coaker, Vernon


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Coleman, Iain


Begg, Miss Anne
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbett, Robin


Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cranston, Ross


Best, Harold
Crausby, David


Blackman, Liz
Cummings, John


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blizzard, Bob



Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Bradshaw, Ben
Davidson, Ian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Browne, Desmond
Dawson, Hilton


Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burden, Richard
Denham, John


Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Donohoe, Brian H


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Caplin, Ivor
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Ennis, Jeff


Cawsey, Ian
Field, Rt Hon Frank





Fisher, Mark
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fitzpatrick, Jim
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Flint, Caroline
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Galbraith, Sam
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Galloway, George
Linton, Martin


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul



Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Macdonald, Calum


Grant, Bernie
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gunnell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McLeish, Henry


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWalter, Tony


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marek, Dr John


Heppell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hesford, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hoey, Kate
Maxton, John


Home Robertson, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Merron, Gillian


Hope, Phil
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Miller, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morley, Elliot


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John



Iddon, Dr Brian
Mountford, Kali


Illsley, Eric
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Mudie, George


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pickthall, Colin


Kemp, Fraser
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Plaskitt, James


Khabra, Piara S
Pollard, Kerry


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris






Pope, Greg
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pound, Stephen
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prosser, Gwyn
Stringer, Graham


Purchase, Ken
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles



Rammell, Bill
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rogers, Allan
Timms, Stephen


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Mark


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy, Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Salter, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Walley, Ms Joan


Sawford, Phil
 Ward, Ms Claire


Sedgemore, Brian
Wareing, Robert N


Shaw, Jonathan
Watts, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
 White, Brian


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Singh, Marsha
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
 Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wilson, Brian



Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Woodward, Shaun


Snape, Peter
Woolas, Phil


Soley, Clive
Worthington, Tony


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spellar, John
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wyatt, Derek


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 5, line 34, after "day", insert—
', not later than the sixtieth working day following the date of receipt,'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 13

DISCRETIONARY DISCLOSURES

Dr. Tony Wright: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 13, leave out from "authority" to end of line 34 and insert—
'which is to any extent exempt or whose disclosure is not required by virtue of section 11.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
Amendment No. 2, in page 7, line 36, leave out from "whether" to "to" in line 37.
Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 42, leave out from "whether" to first "to" in line 43.
Amendment No. 4, in page 8, line 2, leave out from "shall" to end of line 5 and insert—
'(a) inform the applicant whether it holds information, and
(b) communicate the information to him,'.
Government amendments Nos. 49 to 51, 53, 72 and 73.
Amendment No. 41, in clause 75, page 37, line 21, at end insert—
', or the information is information which could be communicated to the applicant in accordance with section 13'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 37, line 26, at end insert—
'or which could have been communicated to him in accordance with section 13'.
Government amendments Nos. 74 and 75.

Dr. Wright: Several times in our proceedings, the relevant Minister has said, "I am sure that there is not very much between us. We disagree only about the means; we are all together on the ends." It is pleasing to come to a part of the Bill about which there is genuine agreement. The Government have vastly improved clause 13. Indeed, by changing the clause, they have fundamentally rebalanced the Bill—not, unfortunately, entirely satisfactorily, but the changes to clause 13 are a good start.
I had intended to speak at some length, but I shall be brief because I suspect that the Home Secretary, who is now with us, will say something to us shortly about the connection between clause 13 revisions and new clause 6, which we shall discuss later. However, couple of points must be made. I have already welcomed the Government's amendment to the clause. They are moving from a discretion to a power for the Information Commissioner, and that is wholly positive.
We have tabled amendment No. 1 because clause 13 still exempts whole areas from the public interest test. Originally, the public interest test did not apply to six areas, and two more have been added to that list. Clause 19 exempts information that is already reasonably accessible to the public. Clause 21 exempts information supplied by bodies dealing with security matters and clause 30 exempts information supplied to a public authority by a court, tribunal or inquiry. Clause 32 exempts information that would infringe parliamentary privilege. Subsections (1) and 2) of clause 38 exempt personal data about the applicant and clause 39 exempts confidential information. Clause 42 exempts disclosures prohibited by statute, and clause 43(2) deals with information exempted by order.
It may seem necessary to exclude each of those areas from the Bill, but that is wrong for two reasons. It is wrong in principle because the public interest test should be universal. It is proper to have exemptions but it is also proper to have the public interest test apply across the board.
As I say, it is wrong in principle to take another category of material and to say that it is outside the public interest test altogether. It may seem an unexceptionable area, but it is not. If I had the time and inclination, I would bore the House with an explanation of why some of these things are more interesting than they seem.
I give simply a couple of examples. It might seem entirely sensible to remove the category of bodies dealing with security matters from any public interest consideration. The bodies that are listed include those with some security functions and other functions. For example, one of the bodies, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, has some security functions, but deals also with football hooliganism, credit card fraud and counterfeiting.
To make the point, I hope graphically, in the run-up to Christmas 1998, NCIS issued a press release warning shoppers about counterfeit toys, including fake Furbys. With the best will in the world, it is difficult to see why a whole spread of its activities should not be subject to a public interest test.
Similar considerations apply to clause 39. The legal obligation to confidentiality is said to be the reason for the exemption from a public interest test. That obligation has been thoroughly breached by the Government in relation to the Food Standards Act 1999, which gives the Food Standards Agency wide powers to obtain information about
food premises, food businesses or commercial operations being carried out with respect to food.
In pursuit of its functions, which include providing information to the public to assist them making "informed decisions about food" it is free to publish
any information in its possession (whatever its source).
In doing so, the agency must
consider whether the public interest in the publication of the advice or information in question is outweighed by any considerations of confidentiality attaching to it.
Therefore, the legal obligation to confidentiality is expressly over-ridden in the Food Standards Act. I could go through—happily for everyone here, I shall not do so—the other provisions, which would demonstrate something similar.
The point is that, although it may seem straightforward to take those rather large categories of information away from the public interest test, it is indefensible to do so. The public interest test should be universal and go across the board. That is the thrust of amendment No. 1. The other amendments in our joint names, as we have got used to describing them, simply take away remaining discretionary elements from clause 3.
I say again that I very much welcome the Government's amendments in that area. We now have a rather different Bill. Unfortunately, the good things that are given in clause 13 are taken away in new clause 6. No doubt the Home Secretary will tell us about that, too.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department(Mr. Jack Straw): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) for the manner in which he has moved the amendment and particularly grateful for the endorsement that he has given. He and his colleagues must claim some credit for the fact that, as he says, the Bill has been vastly improved and fundamentally rebalanced.
This is the first opportunity that I have had today to speak on the Bill. When the proper process of parliamentary debate and amendment has taken place on

the Bill—it is a very important part of the process on this Bill, as on any other—the House will end up with legislation of which it can be justly proud and which contains much greater access to information than many of those who had reservations about the Government's intention and Bill originally feared.
10.30 pm
My hon. Friend referred to remarks and proposed changes in respect of the basic scheme laid down in new clause 6, which I intend to bring to the House's notice in a moment, but first, as they are fresh in our minds, I shall deal briefly with the points that he raised on amendment No. 1 and describe how the basic scheme of the Bill works. Under clause 1, there is a statutory duty to disclose information. Under part II, there are a series of exemptions and exceptions. Some are class exemptions—for example, in respect of policy advice to Ministers—some are total exclusions, which, most notably, include the security and intelligence agencies, and there are others. Most are determined by a prejudice test.
The first and most important thing to say about that part of the scheme of the Bill is that where there is a dispute about whether information that is sought comes within the exemptions or exclusions under part II, the matter goes to the commissioner and—subject only to appeal to the tribunal and, in very limited circumstances, to a court—the commissioner's decision is final. Ministers have no discretion whatever—no veto, no override, nothing. If the commissioner orders a disclosure and says that the information is not exempt or excepted, it has to be disclosed. It is only when the commissioner or the tribunal have themselves said that information that is being sought is not required to be disclosed under clause 1 and part II that the question of the so-called discretionary disclosure under clause 13 kicks in. Amendment No. 1 relates to clause 13. I shall deal with the points made by my hon. Friend, but the background is important.
Originally under clause 13, we proposed that the commissioner would have a power to make a recommendation for disclosure, but not an ability to order it. The disclosure test, which is first on the public authority, is one of balancing the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in the information not being disclosed. As a result of many representations, not least those made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and many other hon. Members, I recognised the concern in the House about the fact that in the scheme of a statutory right to know it looked slightly odd that there should be provision only for the commissioner to make a recommendation. It was up to the public authority whether to accept it. Two objections were made to that: the first was that only a recommendation could be made and the second, which flowed from that fact, was that the level at which a decision would in practice be taken by the public authority as to whether to accept the recommendation might be quite low.
As a result of the representations, we have in many ways fundamentally changed the structure of clause 13, except in one respect. We have strengthened the tests—that is a matter for another debate in respect of factual information—but we have made it a duty, not a discretion, on the public authority to consider whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the public interest in the matter not being disclosed. Where the public authority


decides that the balance of public interest is in favour of disclosure, it is under a duty to disclose. If it comes to a contrary view, the matter can go to the commissioner and he can order disclosure. That is the scheme of the Bill.
I shall come to whether there should be an Executive override, so-called, and at what level that should be raised, but before I do so let me come directly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase in respect of amendment No. 1. As the House will see from subsection (2) of clause 13, those discretionary disclosures—which would be significantly changed by these amendments and new clause 6—cover every clause in part II, apart from those read out by my hon. Friend.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern and that any exemption might set off an amber light, if not a red one, for him. However, each exception to the disclosure regime in clause 13 has a straightforward explanation—one that I hope will meet the approbation of the House.
Under clause 19, if the information is already accessible through other means, the public authority should not be required to disclose it. For example, if people want information that is in the telephone book, they should go to British Telecom and not to a public authority. On the other hand, if the information is not reasonably available from the original source, but is available from a public authority, it would be possible—under further amendments that we are tabling—for someone to apply for it under the Bill.
My hon. Friend referred to provisions on information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters. He implied that he accepted that that was satisfactory in reference to the security and intelligence agencies per se, but that other bodies were included in the definition for the purposes of the measure. He mentioned specifically the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
I went into that matter in considerable detail and it will be apparent to the House that I have some day-to-day knowledge of the workings of NCIS. Although the service deals with intelligence gathered from the police, the Inland Revenue, the immigration and nationality directorate and the Department of Social Security as well as from the intelligence agencies, the sources of that information are not separately identifiable. To include NCIS under the clause while the agencies are excluded would thus be to provide those wanting access to information held not only by NCIS but by the intelligence agencies a direct route to such information. That would be far too dangerous for the operation of those agencies and for their intelligence gathering.
It is not widely understood—there is no particular reason why it should be—that the National Criminal Intelligence Service is that and that alone. It gathers intelligence; it does not prosecute.

Mr. Mackinlay: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall happily give way when I have made my case. [Interruption.]
NCIS gathers intelligence, but at the point when an investigation could take place, the matter is passed over to, for example, the national crime squad, which is composed of seconded police officers and operates in a similar way to a normal police force.
Subsection (2)(f) of the clause applies to clause 39, which relates to information provided in confidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase referred to

the Food Standards Agency. There is a difference between information given in confidence under a statutory requirement to provide it, for example, to the FSA—where people are required to give the information in any event and it is for the agency to determine whether to make it public or to maintain confidence—and information that is supplied according to the common law duty of confidence. It is to the latter that subsection (2) refers. We cannot have a situation in which people provide information in confidence—with the common law obligation going both ways—but that confidence is inadvertently broken as a result of the operation of clause 13.
The other area, to which my hon. Friend did not refer, is the most worrying of all in terms of the overall effect of amendment No. 1. It relates to information that is protected by the Data Protection Act 1988. The Act protects private information while the Freedom of Information Bill is there to bring information out into the public. There is a natural and profound tension between the two and they are, in a sense, different sides of the same coin. If information is protected under the Data Protection Act, we cannot possibly get into the situation where there is, none the less, a discretion in the public interest to break what is a fundamental obligation not to disclose that information. That would not only be wrong and against the Data Protection Act, but against European Community law, a point that will appeal considerably to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). In addition—this point will appeal to the whole House—disclosure of such information would break the European convention on human rights. I am happy to say that that convention has the genuine approbation of the whole House.

Mr. Dalyell: On the difficult issue of data protection and in relation to what my right hon. Friend has just said in the most careful language, what is the position in Scotland where, at the Mound, they are sailing off in a rather different direction? Are we to have two approaches in these islands to the same difficult matters?

Mr. Straw: I was trying to find my copy of the Scottish White Paper. However, as far as devolved matters are concerned, what Scotland does is a matter for Scotland. Let me make it clear that devolution may mean similarity but, fundamentally, it means difference. If Scotland decides to do something different, I celebrate that fact—I do not regret it—even though that fact can sometimes be used in an argumentative to persuade me to do something similar. Although, as I read it, the Scottish Executive, to some extent, started from a different port and went in a slightly different direction, it is catching a similar wind to us. We may end up at roughly a similar destination.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for neatly allowing me to return to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, and that he touched on rather delphically. It relates to the issue of Executive override. As I said earlier, on Second Reading, a number of my hon. Friends suggested that the provisions in clause 13, as it then stood, were not satisfactory because too much discretion was in the hands of Ministers. In turn, my hon. Friends drew attention to the fact that there was no such discretionary regime proposed in the Scottish Executive's White Paper, which had helpfully come out just a few


days before. Instead, it had provisions for an Executive override, so that there would be an equivalent to clause 1 on the duty to provide information and then the equivalent to part II in which there are exemptions and exclusions and a duty to provide information if ordered to do so. There was also a discretionary provision in which there was a balancing test between the public interest in favour of disclosure and the public interest against. The commissioner would be able to order that. However, Scotland took the approach that there would ultimately be a right of Executive override in 15 areas where, notwithstanding a decision by the commissioner or his equivalent to order disclosure, the Scottish Executive meeting collectively could decide to issue a certificate overriding that order because they felt that it was in the public interest to do so.

Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: May I finish my point? I will then happily give way. We have broadly—although not in every particular, for good reasons—adopted that scheme under new clause 6 and the other amendments. We have moved away from discretionary disclosure: we have placed a duty on the Minister to release the information if he or she judges that public interest is in favour of disclosure, not against it; and we have given the commissioner the power to order disclosure.
10.45 pm
The issue remains of what happens if, notwithstanding the commissioner's order, the public authority continues to believe, for sound reasons, that the information should not be disclosed. Most regimes that we have surveyed have some sort of Executive override of one sort or another, and we propose to have one. In the Bill, new clause 6 and the other Government amendments, we propose that the decision in respect of any public authority, other than a local government authority, should be made by a Minister of the Crown.
That category of public authority would include central Government Departments, national health service trusts and police authorities, which are partly local authority and partly not. Any Executive override decision in respect of such bodies would have to be made by a Minister of the Crown; but, in respect of a local authority, it would be made by designated local councils or council committees. That designation would be made by order because the precise form of local government organisation is in a state of flux, and arrangements have to be provided that take that into account.
However, I have received representations to the effect that decisions in respect of the Executive override both by central Government and, separately, in respect of local government, would not be made at a high enough level. Where central Government is concerned, I accept the burden of the argument that has been put to me. Therefore, I propose—it will have to be done in the other place, but it will be done—that those parts of the amendments that speak of Ministers of the Crown will be replaced by a definition of a Cabinet Minister; the House will readily recall that such a definition is already, for quite separate reasons, set out in clause 23(3) of the

published Bill. In future, such decisions will be made by a Cabinet Minister or the Attorney-General, rather than by any Minister of the Crown.
The second issue relates to collective responsibility. Ministers make two sorts of decisions. The vast range of decisions are made collectively and Ministers are collectively responsible for them in any event. However, some decisions are, by legal expectation and practice, made not collectively but in a quasi-judicial role; it happens that most of those decisions fall to be made individually by the Home Secretary of the day, but I make no claim as to the quality of the decision making. Each year, the Home Secretary has to make many decisions on, for example, setting tariffs for mandatory life sentence prisoners and their final release date, extradition matters, and other matters on which I could speak at length.
It is neither possible nor necessary to write into the Bill that the decisions made by a Cabinet Minister must be made only after consultation and agreement with all of his or her Cabinet colleagues—not least because some of the decisions are quasi-judicial. In practice, it would be an extremely unwise Cabinet Minister who chose to issue an exemption certificate amounting to a veto of a decision made by the commissioner to order disclosure without consulting his or her Cabinet colleagues. That might lead to that Cabinet Minister's speedy demise and the receipt of his or her P45 by return of post.
To reinforce those arrangements, I propose that there should be written into the ministerial code—which is a published document available in the Library of the House and, I believe, on the internet—guidance on how decisions relating to Executive exemption certificates should be made and the way in which other colleagues should be consulted, other than on quasi-judicial decisions. I hope that those two changes, one that will be written into the Bill and one that will be made public, are to the approbation of the House.
Before I take interventions, I shall detain the House briefly on the question whether local authorities at any level should have a right to issue exemption certificates.

Mr. Maclennan: I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way before he leaves the subject of central Government. Why is he straining at a camel and sticking at a gnat? He speaks about Executive override as though there was no difference between the Scottish proposals and his proposals. There is a great difference, and there is a great deal of overseas evidence as to what that difference is.
Where there has been collective decision making about Executive override, as in New Zealand, there has not been a disposition on the part of Government to set aside the recommendation of the commissioner, but where the decision has been taken by an individual, as in New Zealand prior to the amendment of the law, there have been many cases of confrontation between the commissioner and the Government.
If the Home Secretary is prepared to set out rules for consultation with Ministers in an informal way, I find it difficult to understand why he should not go the whole way and simply follow the New Zealand pattern.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is slightly ungracious about what I said. With regard to the principle, the effect of what I am proposing will be what happens


in New Zealand. I accept that there will be a significant difference, which I believe is why my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase was good enough to say that the Bill had been vastly improved.
There will be a significant difference in the occasions on which public authorities would routinely have rejected a recommendation from a commissioner under clause 13, which may have been many, and the number of occasions under the new proposed structure, including the changes that I announced this evening, where a Minister would have decided to consult his or her Cabinet colleagues and then publicly have issued an exemption certificate.
The briefing that I have had about the position in New Zealand is that an individual decision was taken on seven occasions. Since decisions have been taken collectively, that figure is down to one. I do not believe that there will be many occasions when a Cabinet Minister—with or without the backing of his colleagues—will have to explain to the House or publicly, as necessary, why he decided to require information to be held back which the commissioner said should be made available. The changes that I am suggesting will make a significant difference in practice to the behaviour of Ministers.

Dr. Wright: Lest my approbation be misunderstood, let me say that I was registering the progress that had genuinely been made. I was not expressing contentment at the destination that we have now reached. Will my right hon. Friend explain the link in the chain of reasoning, to which he has not referred? Why does he think that he needs the override provision?
We celebrate the change to clause 13 and the power that the commissioner has been given. However, if a Minister does not like a decision made by the commissioner, he can still appeal to a tribunal, go to a court on a point of law, or have judicial review. Why, on top of all that, do the Government think that an override is required?

Mr. Straw: That is a point of detail. The possibility of an Executive override means that a Minister will not be able to appeal against a decision by the commissioner. Such a provision would otherwise be otiose. I accept that if we removed the Executive override, we would need to provide for an appeals mechanism.
I apologise for using a nautical analogy again, but we are in uncharted waters. Overseas experience is helpful but only up to a point. We are dealing with different systems. As I said on Second Reading, Freedom of Information Bills are no panacea; they cannot replace good government. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who visited Australia with the Select Committee to examine freedom of information, pointed out that, if a regime goes too far, people in government wrongly take evasive action to avoid a trail of accountability or to prevent the existence of records that can be disclosed.
My hon. Friend said that the Select Committee was told about the extensive use of Post-it notes and a system whereby documents that Ministers and officials wanted to remain confidential were put into a trolley, sprinkled with holy water, ordained as Cabinet documents, wheeled into the Cabinet room and thus excluded from disclosure.
We want a system that works properly, with the grain, and in the context of this country, where there is higher observation in practice of legal requirements than in other

countries. Circumstances could arise in which Ministers genuinely considered—we are talking about fine judgments—that the public interest overrode the commissioner's judgment about disclosure or non-disclosure.
Ministers would have to be on firm ground to do that. They would have to acknowledge that it was only a matter of time before the information that they sought to withhold came out. They would also have to judge whether, when that inevitably happened, it would be easier to explain the original decision.
I have undergone a practical on the subject. It related to the medical reports of the thorough examination by four senior medical practitioners of General Pinochet. As the House knows, I made an obligation of confidentiality to Senator Pinochet. Notwithstanding that, I was asked to release the records to the requesting states. I refused to do that because I believed that my obligations to General Pinochet overrode the unquestionable public interest in the disclosure of the documents. Even though it was a matter of considerable debate and advice, I believed that because I had made a solemn pledge of confidentiality, I could not override it in the public interest.
It would have been convenient for me to release the reports because their contents significantly added to the public understanding of the reasons for my decisions in the case. As the House knows, the divisional court held that I had made the right decision, but the Court of Appeal decided that the public interest in publication overrode my decisions to abide by the obligations that I had made.
To continue with the analogy—[Interruption.] At no stage in the array of legal advice that I received—

Mr. Shepherd: What about data protection?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks from a sedentary position. I promise him that none of the legal advice that I received about General Pinochet's medical report referred to data protection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase has asked me for a specific example. That is the most real example I can think of, because we are dealing with a new regime for the future. As it happens, because of the exceptions covered by clause 13(2), to which his amendment refers, that is information given in confidence and would not be covered by discretionary disclosure. But for that, the commissioner might have felt that the information should have been made available. I am sure that, in extradition proceedings, there will be requests for information held by the Secretary of State to be made available. In that case, the relevant Secretary of State could have come to a decision off his own bat, because it was a quasi-judicial decision that the public interest in not disclosing information overrode the public interest in disclosing it.
11 pm
I can give my hon. Friends two reassurances. First, although the degree varies, most FOI regimes, although not all, have some Executive override. Secondly, with the changes that are already before the House in the form of amendments and new clauses, and those that I have specified this evening—

Dr. David Clark: rose—

Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Straw: May I go on? This regime will not be used all that often, and only in extremis.

Dr. Clark: As my right hon. Friend knows, I am not a great enthusiast for Executive overrides. He has heard me put that argument before. However, given the Government's strong feeling that there should be some form of Executive override—I welcome the concessions that have been made this evening—my right hon. Friend is making rather heavy weather of it. One of the raisons d'etre of this legislation is to put the code on a statutory basis. We felt that that was vital as the codification and advice was unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State is now proposing to move the Executive override up from a Minister to a Cabinet Minister and by code—not by law, but by the ministerial guidance—suggest that he consults his colleague. That is unsatisfactory.
We have the example of New Zealand. I know it is a smaller country and its Parliament is unicameral, but it has had some years' experience and it is based on the Westminster model. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very long intervention?

Mr. Straw: I am not making heavy weather of this issue, but, with great respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that he is. I have put on record what we are proposing to do by way of an amendment. I have also said that these decisions are a matter of collective responsibility, except if the Secretary of State or other Cabinet Minister has a quasi-judicial function, and that will be specified in the ministerial code.
We are different from New Zealand and other countries in that, unlike them, we do not have a written constitution.

Mr. Giles Radice: New Zealand does not have a written constitution.

Mr. Straw: I bow to my right hon. Friend's superior wisdom, but I hope that I have dealt with the point.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the extreme defensiveness of public authorities when they have made a mistake? When they make a little mistake, they are a little defensive, but when something big goes wrong their defensiveness is significant. I am concerned about their defensiveness when a big mistake is made, such as at the disaster at the Hillsborough football ground. The commissioner may issue an order and be absolutely clear that information on that disaster should be made public, but the public body may naturally be so defensive that it appeals for a ministerial override to give it time. Does my right hon. Friend believe that his proposal will do what those of us who have been concerned with the Hillsborough tragedy would like it to do? We would like to feel that this Bill

would not have led to the years and years of unsatisfactory disclosure of reasonable facts that ought to have been made available quickly.

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about what happened at Hillsborough. As she will know, I arranged the scrutiny of events there, under Lord Justice Stuart-Smith.
I said earlier that no freedom of information regime anywhere in the world was a panacea for bad government. I also agree with my hon. Friend that when mistakes are made, public authorities become defensive, although there is one exception to that rule—the Home Office. Over the centuries, the Home Office has become so used to human error that it just gets on with things and improves situations.
I also believe—this is probably the wisdom of Home Secretaries past and present—that it is the worst thing of all to end up being defensive if mistakes are made. That just makes life more difficult. If a mistake is made, the best thing to do is, in Lord Healey's famous phrase, stop digging.
Let me return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). A freedom of information regime cannot be a panacea, and people should not believe that it can be; but, in the case of Hillsborough and in many other cases that have been raised, a regime such as that in the Bill would have helped—and if, God forbid, such a terrible tragedy occurred in the future, would help—to ensure the provision of much more timely information. Much of the information about Hillsborough that has subsequently emerged would have had to be made available much earlier, up to the point at which it would not prejudice an investigation.

Mr. Radice: My right hon. Friend's proposal is clearly an improvement, in that the decision will be taken at a higher level than that of a Minister who is concerned with protecting his or her own reputation or the narrow interests of a specific Department. That is crucial. According to the New Zealand model, involving a collective decision by the Cabinet, a decision about the public interest is indeed a decision about the public interest. That is what we want to put in the Bill.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend's proposal is a great improvement. I suggest that he now try to find a form of words such as "collective responsibility" or "collective action". An explanation can be made elsewhere, but the requirement for a collective decision should be in the Bill, because it is the collective element that will ensure the proper balance of the public interest.

Mr. Straw: An amendment in respect of Cabinet Ministers will have to be tabled in the other place. I shall reflect on what my right hon. Friend says, although I am advised that there are complicated reasons why it is not possible to enact it. Sometimes complicated reasons turn out to be no particular reason at all. My right hon. Friend must, however, bear in mind my point that some functions are quasi-judicial.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and I apologise to him and to the House for my sedentary remarks about him not allowing us to intervene later.
A few moments ago, the Home Secretary said that the National Criminal Intelligence Service was not covered by the provisions, but I should like to explain to him why some of us want to push the envelope on the matter. NCIS has an interface with our security and intelligence services, but—unusually in a principal western democracy—there is no parliamentary oversight of the jurisdiction of any of those services. If we were able to subject NCIS and some of the security and intelligence services to the Bill's provisions, it would go some way to mitigate the fact that there is no proper parliamentary oversight of them. If we had proper parliamentary oversight, we probably would not have to push the envelope. However, we have to deal with that double deficiency.
Before the Home Secretary says that we have the Intelligence and Security Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I should point out that the membership of that Committee is selected by the head of the security services—the Prime Minister. It is selected not by Parliament, but by the man who is in charge, and that just cannot be right.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's last point is his worst one. There are arguments in favour of having a Select Committee on intelligence and security agencies. However, selection of members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has been established by an Act of Parliament, is done through the usual channels. In case he has not noticed, selection for Select Committees is done by the same people, through the usual channels. He therefore made a distinction without a difference.
My hon. Friend also mentioned other western democracies, but I do not know which ones he had in mind. When I think of paradigms of transparency in terms of the relationship between intelligence and security agencies and Ministers and Parliament, many European countries do not come to mind as being at the top of the league table. Our security and intelligence agencies necessarily have to work in secrecy, but, in practice and in statute, they are subject—

Mr. Mackinlay: What about Australia and the United States?

Mr. Straw: I thought that my hon. Friend was perhaps thinking of some of our closer neighbours, such as France.

Mr. Shepherd: What about parliamentary democracies such as Canada?

Mr. Straw: Yes. There are slightly strengthened arrangements in some countries, but less strong arrangements in others. However, I think that our arrangements are pretty satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should remember that NCIS was established by an Act of Parliament that Labour Members supported, and that there is a service authority that operates very similarly to the police authority.

Mr. Fisher: Before the Home Secretary finishes, will he say something more about local authorities? In the past half hour, he has moved a great deal, and it has been an

extraordinary experience for the House to see a Home Secretary reshaping a central part of the Bill while on his feet, and doing so with considerable confidence. Many of us also think that he is moving in the right direction, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) that much work will have to be done, after today, in drafting those provisions.
The Home Secretary will appreciate, however, that he is leaving local authorities in a very strange position. He has now qualified the Executive veto that was proposed in new clause 6, but he has left local authorities with the ability to exercise precisely such a veto. Local authorities can exercise a veto unrestrained by anyone else, so that they are put in a position unlike that of Departments or public authorities. Is that really what the Home Secretary intends to do? Does he really intend, for example, to provide whoever succeeds in becoming London mayor with the ability to veto a decision of the Information Commissioner? I cannot believe that that is what he intends to do. While he is in this very inventive and constructive mood, I urge him to find some way of dealing with the problem of local authorities.

Mr. Straw: I take my hon. Friend's compliment as intended. It is in the nature of Home Office Bills, particularly constitutional ones, that they are subject to amendment. That is an important part of the process. That was true of the Human Rights Act 1998. The debates were less well attended because the issues were less controversial, but there were some distinguished contributions from both sides. The Bill was improved by the dialectical process on the Floor of the House. As a result, those on the Opposition Front Bench formally supported its Third Reading. It is important that the Act has such all-party support.
My hon. Friend invited me to talk about local authorities. I was trying to do that about 20 minutes ago, but I thought that it was important to take interventions first. In the arrangements for Executive certification, we decided that it was important that only elected individuals—Cabinet Ministers at central Government level and councillors at local government level—should be able to issue certificates. Any way of judging the public interest other than through a commissioner has to be carried out through systems of democratic accountability, not indirectly through the decision of an official, however well qualified that official may be. There is consistency between our proposals for central Government and local government.
For reasons that I explained earlier, because the systems for running local government are in a state of flux, with different authorities choosing from the range of options with which my hon. Friends will be only too familiar—I shall come to the London mayor in a second—we have had to provide that the level at which decisions are made by councillors will be specified by order. The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 and other legislation already make extensive arrangements for information to be made available to local authority voters. The arrangements are different, because local authorities operate differently from central Government Departments and non-departmental public bodies. In many respects they are already more extensive.
My hon. Friend should not have too many worries about the Greater London Authority, because the Greater London Authority Act 1999, passed with the approbation of the House, provides extensive arrangements for access to information.
On my hon. Friend's direct point, we have three options. The first is to keep the arrangement as it is; the second is to prevent local authorities from issuing exemption certificates because the decisions are not of the same level as would arise for central Government; and the third is to accept that an exemption certificate might be needed in certain circumstances, but to say that the decision should be taken by a Minister rather than the local authority. I am pleased to tell the House that I have ruled out the third of those options, because if exemption certificates are issued the individual or body with an interest in the information being withheld should be prepared to stand up and answer for it. I am not in favour of Ministers making the decision for local authorities.
I understand the strength of the arguments, but I am not in a position to give a definitive answer on the other two options tonight, because this is more complex than the other issues that I have referred to, important matters of principle though they were. What I will say to my hon. Friend is that we will take the proposal away for consultation, both within and without Government, and we will return to it in another place.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I wish to take the Secretary of State back to the response that he gave to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). He has promised to take advice about including in the Bill an obligation to make Executive override a matter of collective Cabinet responsibility. Will he ask those advising him why it has been possible in New Zealand for that obligation to have statutory force, given that New Zealand has the same system of common law and very much the same constitutional traditions as this country?

Mr. Straw: The answer is yes, I will.
I have been on my feet for quite a long time, but I hope that my explanation will prove useful to the House. I urge Labour Members to support the Government amendments in the group but—with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase—not amendment No. 1.

Mr. Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is just a point of inquiry really. Much of the Home Secretary's contribution was addressed to new clause 6, which is a very important element in respect of the reform of clause 13. When will the House be allowed to discuss those remarks—now, or when we reach that section of the list of selected amendments that covers discretionary procedure and the role of the Information Commissioner?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary's remarks were relevant to the matters discussed by the House in the past few minutes. There will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss new clause 6 when we come to it.

Mr. David Heath: We have witnessed an extraordinary spectacle this evening. The Home Secretary has spoken to

a group of amendments to fillet out one that he or his colleagues intend to put before the House at a later stage. He has given ground at such a rate that one wonders whether he has gone beyond his own try line—or even beyond his own dead-ball line.
The right hon. Gentleman is moving in the right direction, and long may it continue: it is a direction that Liberal Democrat Members have pressed on Ministers throughout the Bill's progress through the House. However, he has not gone far enough, so we must press him further.
When I first thought about speaking to this group of amendments, I anticipated that I would echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) in proposing amendment No. 1. I entirely support the hon. Gentleman's comments, but that is not surprising, as the amendment is also in my name. However, I also support the Government amendments in this group, as they recognise some of the arguments made in Committee and in subsequent weeks. The Government have moved to remove some of the extraordinary discretionary powers originally contained in clause 13.
Clause 13 is the crux of the Bill. It aroused the greatest controversy in Committee, for the very good reason that it could have undermined the entire thrust of the Bill and all the good elements in it. As I said, I was intending to support the Home Secretary's conversion to that view.
What worried me was new clause 6. It was an Executive veto and, as such, entirely unacceptable in the context of the Bill. I suspect that it will still be unacceptable even when we see it in its final form, as outlined by the Home Secretary. It will still substitute an Executive opinion for that of an independent observer—the commissioner—and for one from a court or tribunal. A court or tribunal could consider the matter in the way that the right hon. Gentleman described. I was surprised that he used the case of General Pinochet as an analogy, because he described a process by which the courts overturned the right hon. Gentleman's instinct and decision not to release information. The new clause substitutes that approach for the application to the courts, which would be far more satisfactory.
I question the right hon. Gentleman when he ascribes to Ministers in this situation a quasi-judicial function. I do not believe that Ministers have a quasi-judicial function. This is an administrative function. If it were quasi-judicial, Ministers should immediately disqualify themselves from consideration because they are party to the decision. It is they who will be put at an advantage or a disadvantage.

Mr. Straw: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but what worries the public is that a public body or a Minister will be tempted to avoid disclosure in order to disguise embarrassment. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). The public are worried that the motivation for not releasing information that is described as being in the public interest is because of an underlying factor which the public body or the Minister in question considers outweighs public responsibility. We must address that point if we are to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
There should be no question of the mayor of London having the authority to sign such a certificate. There should be no question—[Interruption.] The right


hon. Gentleman is making strange grimaces. I heard him say that he was considering the matter. I am putting to him something that he should consider—that it should not be for a local authority to issue that certificate. It should not be for a committee of the local authority or—in terms of the amendment that is to be debated either later tonight or tomorrow—an individual within that authority to make that decision. That cannot be right. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to his colleagues who have indicated their support for that approach, because it is an important issue. I hope that he will also listen to the intimations that this should be a collective responsibility. That is the only safeguard within an Executive veto that may arrive at the right result. Otherwise, his proposal will be wholly objectionable.
The right hon. Gentleman said that no freedom of information legislation guarantees good government—it is not a panacea. He is absolutely right, but it sure as hell helps. That is the thrust of all the arguments that right hon. and hon. Members have been making during the Bill's progress. Of course we are delighted that there is to be freedom of information legislation, but we want it to work. We want it genuinely to provide freedom of information. Many of us still have strong doubts that clause 13 in particular, even as amended in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests, will achieve that result.
To a certain extent, the debate has been hijacked by the Home Secretary's mini-statement. I am delighted that it has, because it moved the debate forward. However, I have one small and specific point for Ministers: why is amendment No. 46 in this group? It is the odd one out.
The other amendments move in the right direction, but amendment No. 46 goes to the contrary, and I should be grateful for some explanation of the rationale behind what seems a retrograde step. I welcome many of the amendments, but we must have a substantive debate on new clause 6 when we reach it. Serious questions remain to be answered about whether the Bill will do the job that we want of it.

Dr. David Clark: You quite rightly pulled me up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I trespassed on your generosity in my intervention. I shall detain the House for only a few sentences to conclude what I was saying in a more appropriate form.
Many of us welcome the way in which the Home Secretary has moved away from having an individual Minister with Executive override powers to having a Cabinet Minister and a collective ministerial decision. Perhaps we could formalise matters in statute rather than a code. When my right hon. Friend considers how to change the Bill in another place, perhaps he will consider what happens in New Zealand, where decisions on Executive override are made formally by an Order in Council. The Cabinet takes a collective decision, and the result is published in the official gazette.
Because of the existing legislative model in New Zealand, we know that that process works. It provides a longstop in cases in which a Cabinet feels that it should intervene, and it formalises decision making in a way that would meet the objections of many hon. Members.

Mr. Hawkins: I, too, shall be brief. It struck me as extraordinary that the Home Secretary, taking his first part

in these proceedings, should spend so long on convoluted rituals before addressing the points raised by his hon. Friends. A long way into his speech, he referred to Lord Healey's remark about people who are in a hole stopping digging, but I felt that he was speaking autobiographically. As he came under more pressure from his hon. Friends, there was undoubtedly, in his own words, a natural and profound tension.
I noted how long it took the Home Secretary to reach his main point. The further change of policy was not mentioned until he was 19 minutes into his speech, most of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: No, I said I would be brief, and I shall certainly not give way to an hon. Lady who was conspicuously absent from our proceedings until a very late stage.

Fiona Mactaggart: I have not. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: No. I said that I would be brief. I certainly shall not give way to the hon. Lady.

Fiona Mactaggart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not been conspicuously absent. I was absent while the previous group of amendments was discussed because I had no interest in it, but I have participated in the rest of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether Members attend debates is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hawkins: It struck me that the Home Secretary was indulging in convoluted rhetoric in an attempt to satisfy his hon. Friends. I was reminded of the sophistry that gave us angels dancing on the head of a pin.
The Secretary of State referred to victims of Executive override and Ministers who might get P45s by return of post. It struck me as particularly significant that he was responding to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), whose work on this legislation was so sadly ignored by the Government when they introduced the Bill, and who was himself a victim of Executive override.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wanted a specific answer about Government amendment No. 46, which he said did not fit with the rest of the group. I want to ask the Home Secretary about a different amendment, No. 74, which seeks to delete clause 77 on copyright, designs and patents. Unless I missed the mention of it during his lengthy remarks, I do not think that he referred to it at all. I am puzzled about why that clause should suddenly be deleted, and I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with that.
Clearly the Home Secretary has failed to convince the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and many of his other hon. Friends, and the minor change that he has introduced tonight is obviously extremely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Straw: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked me about amendment No. 46, which removes from the scope of clause 13 information that is exempt by virtue of clause 11. The exemption in clause 11 applies where the cost of complying with a request under clause 1 would exceed an appropriate limit, which we are minded to set at £500. The cost of complying with a request is the cost of locating information, plus disbursements, but authorities may charge only up to 10 per cent. of those marginal costs. I can continue that explanation if the hon. Gentleman wants me to do so.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked about amendment No. 74, which removes clause 77 on copyright. Section 50 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that where the doing of a particular act is specifically authorised by an Act of Parliament, the doing of that act does not infringe copyright. Clause 77 was necessary because section 50 would clearly not have applied to disclosures under clause 13, as such disclosures would have arisen out of a discretion rather than a statutory duty. However, as a result of the changes to clause 13, which alter the discretion to a duty, disclosures under that clause will now be made under a statutory authority, so clause 77 is no longer needed.

Mr. David Heath: I return the Home Secretary to Government amendment No. 46. I have not yet heard why information under clause 11 should be exempt from the public interest test. Why is he saying that cost is the only relevant test?

Mr. Straw: There is a perfectly sensible arrangement, which is accepted by the House, that there is no duty on the public authority to provide information that can be provided only at a genuinely disproportionate cost. Most information is plainly available and the question of cost does not arise. Amendment No. 46 will ensure that the other provisions relating to disproportionate cost also apply to clause 13. That is the top and bottom of it.

Mr. Heath: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Home Secretary; we are after all considering a serious amendment on Report. I agree with him about disproportionate cost, but surely the exemption should be contingent on the public interest not outweighing that cost. There may be circumstances in which what would normally be a disproportionate cost would be outweighed by the public interest. Why cannot the two considerations be weighed in the balance?

Mr. Straw: We did not think that there would be such circumstances. It will be open to the commissioner. If she encounters a series of situations in which she genuinely believes that the arrangement is wrong, she may make representations for change. However, if it is accepted by the House, as I think it is, that there must be some limit to the cost of complying with an information request—bearing it in mind that there is also a limit that will be

much less than the gross cost of complying: what is charged to the person who is seeking the information—that must apply to clause 13 as much as to the rest of the Bill. It is for the hon. Gentleman to decide whether he accepts that argument or not.
I will look at what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) says, but I do not wish him to hold out too much hope that we will be able to achieve that. I do not profess to as much familiarity with the arrangements in New Zealand as some of my hon. Friends. I profess to considerable familiarity with arrangements here.
I honestly say that what I have said today will certainly ensure, as a matter of law, that certificates are formally made by a Cabinet Minister. The law will require that to be the case. Then, with the exception of matters that are within the quasi-judicial category, where an individual Minister must make that decision, the other decisions are made collectively. Typically, they have been made by Cabinet committee, not by Cabinet. This country is about 15 times the size of New Zealand. Government is, therefore, significantly more complex. Decisions must be made at that level, but it will be a collective decision.
As I have said, I hope that what I have said has the approbation of the House. It is not directly germane to it, but I hope that, in the light of the detailed explanations that I sought to provide to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), he will consider withdrawing amendment No. 1.

Dr. Tony Wright: I can immediately put my colleagues out of any discomfort by saying that we never intended to divide the House on that part of the Bill. Indeed, we came here largely to celebrate the changes that the Government have made to clause 13.
We were not prepared for the extraordinary parliamentary spectacle that we have just enjoyed. I think that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) struck the wrong tone. We have experienced not, to use his phrase, convoluted rhetoric, but Parliament doing its job and a Minister responding to Parliament doing its job. It is all too infrequent that a Minister responds to concerted and, I hope, intelligent pressure.
It has been interesting to watch, as it were, the oral redrafting. We have enjoyed it. To be frank, I am not sure whether, on reflection, we shall think that enough has been said yet. I am not sure yet that those of us who dislike the idea of the veto are persuaded that a veto of any type is acceptable. Some of us might be persuaded if we could toughen the hurdle: raise it sufficiently, so that it became a collective Cabinet hurdle, rather than a ministerial hurdle. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's comment that he will go away and think about that.
While my right hon. Friend is being so generous, I would add one more consideration: when other systems retain an override or a ministerial certificate in such cases, they confine it to areas of what might be called key state interests: for example, defence and international relations. The problem is that the override goes across the board. As we have heard, it takes in local authorities, too.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend mentions local authorities. Does he agree that that is a crucial element of what we are talking about? If the


Home Secretary has been gracious enough to bump the executive veto up from Minister to Cabinet Minister, he might also reflect that the decision should be bumped up to cabinet in local authorities, or at least to their leadership.

Dr. Wright: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, but we have some loose ends to attend to. Until tonight, we had none and that counts, in parliamentary terms, as progress. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has guaranteed us a sleepless night. I congratulate him on the progress that we have made so far and look forward to progress resuming tomorrow. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 7, line 18, leave out from "(2)," to end of line 19.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Equality (Disability, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 16th March, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 59) on Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant 2000-01 (HC 361), which was laid before this House on 21st March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill [Money]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Eric Forth: We come again to a money resolution on a very interesting Bill that occupied the House a couple of Fridays ago. The money resolution is more interesting than usual. Although the wording is cast in terms of the sort that we have become used to, we have also become used to the fact that Ministers never do the House the courtesy of speaking to the money resolution and explaining what its contents might be. That means that the more curious of us have to ask a number of questions to elicit information from them. It is a pity that things are done that way round, but that seems to be how they prefer it, so I am very happy, as always, to ask my few modest questions to try to find out from the Minister what lies behind the money resolution.
We are discussing the potentially significant Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill and—we are used to this—the money resolution is opaque. It does not tell us how much money we are being asked to vote, but in some ways it is worse because it refers to the authorisation of
the payment out of money provided by Parliament…
That is the key phrase, as ever. The House is being asked to authorise expenditure of taxpayers' money. The money resolution goes on to refer to
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which tinder any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
In the usual way, we are given no indication at all of the amounts involved. That would be interesting enough, but as the Minister knows—he sat through the debate on the Bill, which took about five hours—we failed to get any indication at all of the scale of expenditure that might be involved and hence might give us a clue as to the scope of the money resolution. I give a few brief examples from Hansard, which will probably suffice. The Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), was asked how much expenditure might be involved. He said:
I would be stupid to give a figure that would be used in evidence against me. We can pluck any figure out of the air.
That is not an encouraging start for a House anxious to know exactly what amount might lie behind the money resolution. The promoter was coy on the subject—I put it no higher than that.
I decided to seek further guidance and inspiration from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)—a senior and experienced Member who is also an architect. He is, moreover, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Accommodation and Works.


One would have thought that he had enormous knowledge of such matters. On the subject of what the Bill might involve in costs and in public expenditure, my hon. Friend said:
the Bill contains no guesstimate of its cost. I believe that it will cost a considerable amount of money…I would estimate the cost at approximately £500,000 million a year.
I am not sure that that is what my hon. Friend said, or intended to say—I can only quote the words in Hansard. That is the first figure on the record from an expert—£500,000 million a year is what the Bill might cost the taxpayer. He continued:
I also estimate that a programme of eradicating fuel poverty and ensuring that all the housing stock is satisfactorily insulated would take 15 years.
We are talking about an expenditure programme of 15 years that may cost the amount estimated by my hon. Friend.

Ms Joan Walley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the cost of fuel poverty? What would it cost not to take action to ensure that households are not in fuel poverty, leading to ill health? Is he aware of the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York? The foundation has estimated that fuel poverty has a huge effect in terms of ill health and its costs to the national health service.

Mr. Forth: I refute the whole concept of fuel poverty. It is nonsense, as I tried to point out in some of my interventions in the debate. Unfortunately, we ran out of time before I could make the speech that was bubbling up inside me.
Fuel poverty is nonsense. I am much more interested in food poverty, for example. The average family spends much more on food than on fuel. Many families cannot even afford enough food. During the debate, I cited figures that showed that the lowest decile of families by income spend the same proportion of their income on alcohol and tobacco as they do on fuel. Much nonsense is talked about fuel poverty; I am not convinced of it as a concept, so I do not feel that it is relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet added:
My view is that we need to insulate 5 million houses in England more effectively and at the top end, although I hope that the figure may not be so great, as many as 8 million throughout the United Kingdom.
Although no one has yet given a definitive or authoritative figure, we are beginning to realise that the Bill might involve the expenditure of large sums. However, for reasons that I am beginning to understand, the Minister has not yet given us a figure; nor did the Bill's promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West—for reasons that I also understand.
We have to look further for inspiration and guidance on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), the Front-Bench spokesman on that occasion, said:
if the House supports the Bill—as I hope that it will—we need to think through the taxation and spending consequences.
That is an understatement if ever I heard one. I agree with him; it would be desirable to think through those consequences. I would have thought it more desirable to

do so before Second Reading or before we approve the money resolution. If not, the House will be asked to sign a blank cheque. That would not be a responsible way to undertake our duties.
I then looked to see whether the Minister gave any guidance in the debate about what he thought the Government might be committing themselves to were we to support the Bill and the money resolution. I am afraid that I looked in vain. He had much to say about current programmes of different types and he pointed out:
According to recent estimates, at least 4.3 million households have difficulty with fuel bills.
That was a modest use of words; the phrase "difficulty with fuel bills" is a fair way of putting it. I do not necessarily disagree with that, although I would not want to get involved with the ludicrous concept of fuel poverty. However, he offered no more clues as to how much he thought the Government might commit themselves, and therefore the taxpayer, to as a result of the Bill.
I was slightly encouraged—I hope that the Minister will not disappoint me when he replies—when he said:
We have to consider provisions for bringing the measure into force and, bearing in mind the Government's current spending commitments and reviews, we want to consider carefully the references to time scales and targets.—[Official Report, 10 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 1306-354.]
That was the kind of responsible statement that we have come to expect from him. However, there was still no clue as to whether the expenditure involved in implementing the Bill might be within the scope that the Government can afford.
We are in an unusual position. A Bill has been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West and it received enormous praise and support on Second Reading. However, it received all that support with no one having any idea how much money would be required to implement its provisions properly. For fans of the concept of fuel poverty who think that it is a real problem that must be tackled, I am left with the thought that they must have gone away from the Second Reading debate, in which they expressed their concerns eloquently, wondering how the Government would solve the problem. The Bill gave no sign of how that would be done and the Government did not say how much taxpayers' money they would commit to fulfilling the high aspirations expressed in it. Indeed, my hon. Friend, the Bill's promoter, was not able or prepared to tell the House what he thought would be necessary to fulfil its purposes.
The terms of the money resolution ask the House to give the Government an apparent blank cheque. It refers to
any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.
That has all the appearances of a blank cheque. Nothing in the Bill tells us how much might be required and nothing in five hours of debate told us how much money would be involved to deal with the alleged problem of fuel poverty. Will the expenditure be focused and specific or will it be general and blanket? We have no idea of the answer.
A cynic might say that the Bill will commit the Government to very little other than expressing rather vague targets. In the remarks that I quoted, the Minister gave a hint that, even then, the Government might want to reconsider the targets and move them around a bit,


so that they are not too taxing and do not involve a commitment in the foreseeable future. That is one interpretation.
There is a quite different interpretation. To deal adequately and properly with the problem of so-called fuel poverty, enormous sums of money would have to be spent, and spent quickly, to tackle the problems that were described so eloquently by many hon. Members on Second Reading.
We are in a peculiarly difficult position. We are being asked to vote for an unknown sum of money that could vary from not very much, if little comes out of the Bill and the problem of fuel poverty is hardly dealt with, to an inordinately enormous sum of taxpayers' money. Perhaps it will not be as much as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet suggested, but it could be several billions of pounds over a period of years if the problem is to be dealt with effectively. We just do not know what is involved.
I suggest that, unless the Minister is now able, having given the matter some reflection, to give us a far clearer idea of how much spending might be involved, the House should not give its assent to the money resolution. It should not do so until further consideration has been given to the extent of the taxpayer's involvement and commitment in the aims set out under the Bill. That is the only responsible attitude that the House can adopt.
It cannot be right for the House of Commons, on behalf of the taxpayer, to agree to the form of words before us, given that hon. Members have no idea of the extent of the commitment involved. That is my simple plea. I hope that, unless the Minister is able to provide a full and convincing explanation of what is involved, the House will not give its assent to the money resolution.

12 midnight

Mr. David Maclean: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and to the House for not having been present for the Minister's opening remarks on this important subject.

Mr. Forth: He did not make any.

Mr. Maclean: In that case, I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for not having been here to hear the bulk of his most erudite and interesting speech.

Mr. Forth: You can guess it.

Mr. Maclean: I was not paying attention to the Annunciator, because I assumed that the Government would want to make more progress tonight on the Freedom of Information Bill.
The money resolution relates to the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill. I draw the attention of the House to clause 2, which is entitled "Duties of the appropriate authority", subsection (2)(a) of which states that the strategy that the appropriate authority has to draw up should include
measures which the appropriate authority believes are required to ensure the fitting of a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures to the homes of persons in fuel poverty.

We know that estimates of the number of homes of persons in fuel poverty range from 1 million to 4 million. However, the more homes are insulated and upgraded, the greater will be the number of people caught in the net of a new definition of fuel poverty—inevitably, as is the case with any definition of poverty, the threshold will be lowered over time.
Britain is urged, over a 15-year period, to catch up with Finland, Sweden and other countries that are regarded as having higher standards of home insulation, but I assume that those countries will not stand still during that period. As technology improves, so will their methods of home insulation, with the result that, in 15 years' time, we shall be told that, despite implementing the marvellous programme set out the Bill, Britain still lags behind other, more sophisticated and better insulated countries and that we must embark on further energy efficiency programmes.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on the way in which he steered his Bill through Second Reading. Even though he has not had the privilege of serving as a high-ranking Minister, despite being an admirable Parliamentary Private Secretary to other Ministers, on that occasion, he displayed the skill envied by Ministers of being able carefully to avoid answering all questions about the cost of his Bill. He said that cost was a matter to be considered in Committee, addressed in due course, discussed on Report. His masterful answers did not, however, satisfy those of us who are concerned about the cost implications of the Bill.
Given that clause 2(2)(a) refers to
a comprehensive package of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures
for up to 4 million homes in this country, is it any wonder that some conclude that, over the time scale envisaged, the cost might total as much as £15 billion?

Mr. Tom Brake: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Government amendment has been tabled that would delete that "comprehensive package"?

Mr. Maclean: That makes it all the more important that we get a firm statement from the Government on what the cost will be. I have been considering my hon. Friend's Bill. My concern, if I may say so in the nicest possible way, is that it is incredibly well meaning, but it lacks teeth.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend as he advanced his Bill in the House, and I was convinced that there was some merit in some parts of the Bill. I have been contemplating amendments to the Bill on Report which would give the targets some proper teeth—amendments that would specify sums of money. I was worried that my amendments would be out of order because the Government would probably not table a money resolution and I would not be able to advance them.
Now we have a money resolution, it is appropriate for me to consider amendments that would give the Bill some financial muscle and some certainty, so that the 4 million people out there in fuel poverty are not misled into thinking that the Government have supported a Bill that will make things better for them, only to find that it has no teeth.
However, we find that the Government intend to delete the comprehensive package. When my hon. Friend proudly told the House that the Government were supporting his measure, was he aware that he would be stabbed in the back by them?

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Maclean: I give way to my right hon. and erudite Friend.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is starting to persuade me that the open-ended nature of the money resolution could be to the advantage of the Bill. If my right hon. Friend persuades me that we need to toughen the Bill up and make it effective, rather than waffle, an open-ended money resolution would provide the vehicle whereby large commitments could be made, so that the alleged problem of fuel poverty could be properly addressed. If my right hon. Friend works a little harder, he might take me with him.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and erudite Friend always has a certain logic about him. He may initially have been opposed to the Bill when it was introduced in a different form, without the considerable experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West brought to it. My right hon. Friend may have been opposed to the Bill because of the excessive burden that it may impose on the taxpayer for no apparent gain. Now, I believe that my right hon. Friend was concerned about the Bill because he thought that it might be meaningless.
The Bill was well sounding. It seems that the Government supported it only because they thought that it had no teeth. Now they are proposing to weaken it further by removing the word "comprehensive". If the Government are planning to support my hon. Friend's Bill and put it on the statute book because it will not cost them a penny, that would be gross sabotage of the Bill and would make a mockery of the money resolution that we are putting through tonight.
That will leave the 4 million people out there, alleged to be in fuel poverty, and mislead them into thinking that the Government are planning expenditure on the measure, hence the money resolution. The good news is that I may persuade my right hon. Friend to support me in the amendments that I am considering to my hon. Friend's Bill, to put some proper financial targets into the measure.
If the Government wish to remove the word "comprehensive" and insert the words "half-hearted or wishy-washy strategy for a partial programme of home insulation, heating and other energy efficiency measures here and there in the country, whenever we feel like it in the future", I must tell them that alternative amendments will be tabled when the Bill comes back on Report. I look forward to my hon. Friend supporting them. His Bill is important.
We spent a whole day one Friday ensuring that my hon. Friend's Bill got through and was not sabotaged by the wreckers on the Government side, who block so many Bills on Friday. My hon. Friend had to do his utmost to persuade the Government Whips Department not to block

his Bill and to let it through. We all know the record of those on the Government Front Bench on blocking Bills on a Friday.
We spent six hours ensuring that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West proceeded to Committee. Yet it appears that the Government have tabled amendments that make a mockery of the money resolution. What is the point of including in the Bill a money resolution that states:
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any expenses of the Secretary of State or of the National Assembly for Wales under this Act; and any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable under any other Act
if the Government have tabled an amendment to delete the first clause, which would make a difference to those in fuel poverty?
Clause 2(2)(b) provides for
measures which the appropriate authority believes are required to ensure that households in fuel poverty have access to appropriate fuel tariffs which encourage the efficient use of energy.
We can speculate that if 4 million homes are to be insulated to the Swedish or Finnish standard, it will cost £4 billion or £5 billion. However, neither the Government nor the briefing material from the special interest groups provide an estimate of the cost.
What measures would appropriate authorities deem suitable to ensure that households in fuel poverty
have access to appropriate fuel tariffs which encourage the efficient use of energy?
What does
access to appropriate fuel tariffs
mean? It must mean that tariffs for those in fuel poverty are cut or reduced. That means an element of subsidy, or heating payments, which must come from the taxpayer, not the appropriate authority. We therefore require a statement from the Government that outlines their calculations of the cost of the fuel tariff subsidy if clause 2(2)(b) is to be effected. I intended to explore the matter on Report.
The phrase, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, with the assistance of the parliamentary draftsmen, had incorporated in the Bill seemed cleverly and carefully worded. However, it does not have teeth. I wanted to consider clause 2(2)(b) in a little more detail. However, I wait to be advised about whether the Government have tabled an amendment to delete that provision. If so, it would underline the cynicism that the Government have displayed towards the Bill.
Clause 2(2)(c) requires the appropriate authority to devise a strategy on
any other energy efficiency measures which in the opinion of the appropriate authority will reduce the extent of fuel poverty.
What could those measures be? What would they cost? Are we debating an important money resolution when the House is not sure about the cost of clause 2(2)(c)? The Minister, with the excellent briefing that one receives from Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions officials, doubtless has some calculations. Perhaps if we had made further progress on the Freedom of Information Bill, we might be in a position to exact those details from the Government.
What does the Minister's brief say about the Department's estimated cost of clause 2(2)(c) and "any other efficiency measures", which may reduce fuel poverty? The Government


must have an estimate of the cost. If those costs are too high in the Government's opinion, I suspect that they will either table an amendment to delete clause 2(2)(c) or insert a further delaying clause on Report. I suspect that it will suggest that the final implementation target will be set in the far distant future. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West would not like that; it would be a cynical Government move to provide for local authorities to draw up strategies, which will be put on the shelf to gather dust.
Clause 2(3) suggests that
The targets shall include a final target date…by which as far as is reasonable practicable no person will live in a home which cannot be kept warm at reasonable cost and shall also include at least one interim target.
When considering the money motion and the costs that the taxpayer could incur under the Bill, we must have an indication of the time scale in which it will operate.

Mr. Forth: I remind my right hon. Friend that the Minister said on Second Reading:
We have to consider provisions for bringing the measure into force and, bearing in mind the Govemment's current spending commitments and reviews, we want to consider carefully the references to time scales and targets.—[Official Report, 10 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 1353-54.]
My right hon. Friend may be asking too much, because the Minister has said that the Government will have to consider carefully—and we know what that usually means—the references to time scales and targets. I suspect that the time scales and targets may not survive the Committee stage.

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right to remind me of the Minister's implied threat. It was a serious threat. He said in the nicest possible way with his usual ministerial smile that he would have to consider carefully the time scales and targets. We all know that that is ministerial speak for "we cannot have those time scales and targets, so we will have to remove them or delete them from the Bill."
The Government may remove my hon. Friend's modest proposal that the appropriate authorities should include a final target date. My hon. Friend does not even require that it should be the 15-year time scale that we used to hear about in other Bills. To ensure that he had the Government on board, he was so reasonable that he did not pin them down even to a 15-year time scale, yet they find even that unacceptable. If they find the rather loose phrase "a final target date" unacceptable, it must be because they are concerned about the overall cost in the time frame that they have in mind.
The Government are under a clear obligation to spell out what the costs would be if the Bill were to be implemented over five, 10 or 15 years. The total implementation costs may have been grossly exaggerated—that is possible, even with the excellent advice that my hon. Friend was given. Since the Bill received its Second Reading, I have had letters from insulation companies. They do not call themselves that—they are new millennium sophisticated heating companies. They say that they have the perfect solution to the problems addressed by my hon. Friend's Bill. They urge me to support it because they hope to sell 50 million highly efficient fuel condensing boilers and a lot of loft insulation.
I do not impugn the integrity of those companies, but many of them believe that they will make a lot of money from the Bill, if it is enacted, in a reasonably short time scale. The taxpayer will have to pick up that tab, and the Government may be exaggerating the overall costs.
If the cost of this measure turns out to be £2 billion over 20 years, it is reasonable, but if it is £15 billion over five years, that is an enormous cost. Given that the taxpayer is being fleeced by the Government, those costs would be unacceptable. The Government must give the House an idea of the overall cost of the four different, crucial provisions in clause 2(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d). When we have that figure, we will be in a position to make a judgment on whether the cost would be acceptable to the taxpayer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it were incurred over three, five, 10 or 25 years or a century.
I know that the Government have made those calculations. The Government could not have reached a view on the Bill in the Cabinet Sub-Committee, and the Treasury would not have consented to its getting as far as this, unless the Government had had fairly clear figures relating to the anticipated costs. The Minister would not be receiving his instructions from Cabinet Committee A or from the Treasury to pull the teeth of the Bill—to extract references to, for instance, a comprehensive plan, and to make the other amendments that we shall see—unless the Treasury had a fair idea of what the costs would be.
Given that both the Treasury and the Minister's Department have a fairly accurate idea of the costs, and that the Minister is therefore under instructions to remove the parts of the Bill that will require money, I believe that the Minister has an obligation to share the information that he has with the House. Otherwise, by the time we return to the Bill on Report, I shall probably have drafted amendments to specify costs in the Bill, to try to help my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West to ensure that the 4 million people out there experiencing fuel poverty are not misled.
I shall also draft amendments putting in a sensible time scale. I may be opposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I suspect that we may have some fairly vociferous arguments on that Friday; but I want to ensure that, if the Government are going to kill the Bill by stealth, we have a fair idea of exactly what costs they find acceptable.
I may table amendments suggesting that the costs should range from perhaps £5 million per annum to £500 million per annum, and I shall want to hear from the Minister the level at which the Government find the costs acceptable. Then we may have an indication of whether they are taking the Bill seriously, or whether they are involved in an elaborate charade involving their officially supporting in the House a Bill that could have serious financial implications for them and pretending to the public and all the lobby organisations out there that they are supporting a Bill that will one day eradicate fuel poverty, while making dashed sure that they table amendments in Committee and on Report to remove the vital parts of the Bill that deliver the solutions.
If the Government are going to remove parts of the Bill that relate to financial targets and costs, they have involved us in a big charade tonight by tabling a money motion that is absolutely meaningless. Money motions are important: they represent the one control that the House


has, theoretically, over the Executive. But the Executive, of course, is backed by a large Labour majority, and can drive through money motions if it wishes to do so.
The Minister has written books about honesty and justice in our legal system. The Minister has a reputation for seeking out the truth. The Minister has a reputation for supporting freedom of information. Given all that, I should have thought that the Minister would wish to put his folder on the Dispatch Box and read out the figures that he has relating to the costs of the Bill.
The Minister will, of course, want to share those figures with the House. If he does so and they are reasonable, Conservative Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—who may wish to oppose the Bill one day because he considers the costs excessive—may be highly embarrassed.
If the motion is not to prove meaningless, and if it is to be voted through by the Government's huge majority, the Minister owes it to us to tell us the costs of implementing clause 2(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d). Let him give us the overall ballpark figures; then my right hon. Friend might be able to support the Bill, and I might be persuaded to withdraw some of my amendments to put the figures into it.

Mr. David Amess: The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) probably thought that he was helping me, but I think that he rather fed my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) with some fuel.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for missing his opening speech, but I think that he may have been slightly disingenuous in not mentioning that I had invited both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border to serve in Committee, which will begin considering the Bill tomorrow.
I also sent my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst quite a detailed analysis of the overall costing. He will know that that showed that, in many cases, savings would pay for the programme's costs. Private finance also could be used. Transco and Scottish Power have already launched various schemes. Today, I received a letter from the Electricity Association, which will help with the project. I also know that, on Second Reading, the Minister said that the measure would not cost anything extra. I very much hope that the Minister will reinforce that point today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Chris Mullin): I thought that I had drawn the short straw when I heard that I had to be in the Chamber at this late hour, but the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) are a class act, and it was well worth waiting for.
The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), enshrines commitments and mirrors

measures that we already have in hand. For that reason, we do not believe that anything in the Bill would increase public expenditure above and beyond current commitments. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was quoting from my Second Reading speech, but he seemed to overlook the sentence that said that the Bill was unlikely to have any financial implications.
As hon. Members have suggested, the Bill may not require a money resolution. However, it is important to note that amendments may be tabled at some stage that would require a money resolution. It is of course difficult to be certain, but if an amendment were tabled or circumstances arose in which consideration of financial issues was necessary, we would not want to restrict debate on the Bill simply because the resolution had not been agreed to beforehand.
Therefore, although in the Bill's current form we believe that it is unlikely to create a charge on public funds, we should not dismiss the possibility that the Committee chairman night need to put the question on charging provisions. Agreement of the resolution would enable a full and careful examination of the Bill to occur. It is the usual courtesy for hon. Members to agree and support such resolutions on private Members' Bills, and I trust that they will support this one.
Agreement to the resolution does not commit the Government to additional expenditure—[Interruption.] I knew that that would cheer up the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but it will not be news to him, because I said it in my Second Reading speech. Unaccountably, he omitted that bit when he was quoting from my speech. However, the resolution will allow the Committee, which meets tomorrow, to consider the Bill and to consider any concerns that the Government may have on any financial implications and the control of public expenditure. I commend the resolution to the House.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As I understand it, the Minister said that the Bill can be considered in Committee and become law without the money resolution, and that the money resolution only allows amendments to be made to the Bill. If the resolution were not agreed, it could create a dilemma for my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who may want to move amendments to the Bill.
I—with the encouragement of Worthing borough council—want the Bill to become law. We should like to see far fewer people in fuel poverty, and the creation of targets in achieving that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.

Family Law Act 1996

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I address the House on an issue that affects many families and children. Divorce is a deeply painful experience for the couple, their children, their parents, their family, their friends and the taxpayer.
The recent Economic and Social Research Council document "Family and Household Change in Britain" by Alison Wertheimer and Susan McRae says that, with more than 40 per cent. of marriages ending in divorce, the increase in marital breakdown in Britain is a major political and social concern. Britain heads the European league table. There were 145,200 divorces in the United Kingdom in 1998. It is mildly encouraging that the figure is lower than it was in 1991, but it remains an enormously important issue.
Divorce is a particularly important issue when children are involved. It scars the lives of many. Children and their families suffer alike if there are on-going resentments, arguments and distress. Through my work as the chairman of a juvenile court for many years, a researcher into child poverty and an executive member of the Children's Society, as well as my work as a Member of Parliament and a Minister, I have long witnessed first-hand the pain and suffering that divorce can cause.
I hope that the House has seen the recent document by Bryan Rodgers and Jan Pryor, "Divorce and Separation: the outcomes for children", based on an analysis of 200 research reports from the United Kingdom and overseas. The document's key argument is that it is the process rather than the event of the divorce that is so damaging. Family conflict before, during and after the process and the parental ability to recover from the distress of separation affect children's ability to adjust. Quality contact with the non-resident parent can greatly improve outcomes.
The adverse effects are well understood. They include poverty and poor housing, being poorer as adults, behavioural problems, performing less well in school, needing medical treatment, leaving home early, becoming sexually active, pregnant or a parent at an early age, depressive symptoms, high levels of smoking and drinking, and drug abuse during adolescence and adulthood.
After enormous consultation and great care, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who was one of the great social reforming Lord Chancellors of the past century, began an ambitious process of divorce law reform. He introduced the Family Law Act 1996. His vision was that before couples take steps towards divorce, they should
be aware of the enormous emotional, social and economic upheaval involved in divorce and, very importantly, the services available to help and support couples.…It will communicate the facts that will help people make decisions on a basis of knowledge.
The 1996 Act is widely regarded as one of the most radical and far-reaching reforms of family justice in the past century. It became law on 4 July 1996 after a stormy passage through Parliament, not without controversy. It is one of the characteristics of the former Lord Chancellor that, in the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act

1996, he was prepared to follow through principles that would protect children and their interests and safeguard them from damage and harm.
The aim of the 1996 Act was to meet the twin objectives of saving saveable marriages and promoting a conciliatory approach to divorce if divorce is the only option. It marked a significant shift in divorce legislation, acknowledging divorce as a process rather than a concrete event. That is an important feature of the Rowntree distillation of the 200 research surveys.
A conference at Dartington last September brought together leading figures of the legal and welfare world. They debated the issues surrounding the Family Law Act 1996. Their conclusions have been summarised in an important book entitled "No Fault or Flaw: The Future of the Family Law Act", published by Jordans. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department have studied it carefully. In the book, Lady Justice Hale elegantly identifies the key principles of the Act: the introduction of a genuinely no-fault divorce; the principle that, as far as practicable, arrangements for the future should be made before rather than after the divorce is granted; the provision of reliable, neutral information to both parties to the divorce and to their children; and the availability of good-quality mediation services.
Part I of the 1996 Act covered general principles, part III covered mediation and legal aid, and part IV covered domestic violence. They have all been implemented, but part II—which covers divorce and separation and which contains the most extensive and perhaps controversial provisions, including the provision of information—has not.
Part II contains arrangements for information meetings, on the principle that parties to a divorce should be given quality, objective and factual information at an early stage. It provided for a preliminary cooling-off period of three months after an information meeting, during which there could be no divorce proceedings. It provided for an extension to that period of six months, and required that parties' financial arrangements should be finalised in advance. Under the Act, divorce could be granted only when all the final arrangements had been finalised and were in place.
Sections 13 and 14 in part II gave the court specific power to adjourn proceedings at an interlocutory stage, to consider the opportunity of the parties to take part in mediation.
Part II carried the hopes of many for a new future for family law resolution. It would have resulted in an increase in co-working of all family law professionals, and facilitated a conciliatory approach and a greater awareness of the victims of domestic violence and of the welfare of children. In addition, it would have brought about a refocusing on saveable marriages and the exploration of those cases suitable for mediation. It would also have encouraged greater individual responsibility by the parties for the steps taken in the divorce process.
Adults needed—and still need—help rather than preaching. Children need to be considered as real people and active participants, rather than passive recipients of adults' decisions. Justice Hale has shown that there has long been consensus that those facing marital breakdown need better information. There is an even stronger belief that children need access to good-quality and


age-appropriate information from a neutral source. However, disagreement about the best way to achieve those objectives led the former Lord Chancellor to decide that the options should be considered and tested in a number of pilot studies.
In opposition, the Labour Party repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the Family Law Act 1996, and especially to part II. On 2 October 1998, the present Lord Chancellor reaffirmed that commitment in a speech to the closing session of the fourth European conference on family law. He said:
Support for marriage and the family is at the heart of the Government's strategy for modernising Britain.
He added that the key objective of the Act was to
provide for couples contemplating divorce to be encouraged to consider whether their marriage is really over and to consider whether marriage counselling might be helpful before they take the final step to divorce…The second objective underlying the…Act is that, where all attempts to save a marriage have failed and the marriage broken down irretrievably, it should be brought to an end with the minimum of distress to the parties and any children affected.
He continued:
Mediation is a powerful means of achieving this policy objective.
He said that he was
keen to promote the use of mediation in family disputes, particularly to resolve conflicts over property, money and children, and between couples who have decided to divorce or separate. The effective use of mediation can reduce bitterness or acrimony. That is good for the individuals who are divorcing: good for their children; and good for the wider society—for the taxpayer funding those public services which have to pick up the pieces.
The Government made much of the pledge to the family unit. The document entitled "Supporting Families" also anticipated that part II of the Act would be brought into force. On 8 March 1999, the legal correspondent of The Times, Francis Gibb, said that
the Government is to go ahead with a shake-up of the divorce laws after research has shown that compulsory information meetings for people intending to divorce could save thousands of marriages.
The Lord Chancellor is expected to announce within weeks a date next year for implementing…a main aim is to encourage couples to settle disputes over children and finances amicably and outside the courts.
Only a month before the Lord Chancellor's announcement, the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law, set up by the previous Lord Chancellor to advise Ministers on the implementation of the 1996 Act and chaired by Sir Thomas Boyd Carpenter, appeared fully to accept that implementation of part H would go ahead.
During the year, the board considered the on-going research on pilot information meetings that was being led by Professor Janet Walker of Newcastle university. It stated that it had
continued to be impressed by the quality and the depth of this research.
However, on 17 June last year, the Lord Chancellor declared that the Government were delaying the implementation of part H. The official reason was that time was needed for more research into information meetings. This has bemused and shocked the academic and legal worlds. The Government are not known to hesitate before rushing into legislation without any

preparation. The Act had received massive preparation, research and consideration. When it comes to disintegrating the United Kingdom and reforming the House of Lords, it matters not where the Government are going. When it comes to preparation in advance, think not of it but walk in and see what happens afterwards. However, on this vital issue, for some reason, with no known explanation, and misusing the research available, the Government suddenly stalled.
Describing this, David Hodson, a distinguished lawyer from my area and who is vice-chairman of the United Kingdom college of family mediators, said:
It brings into mind the words said by the original patron of divorce professionals Henry VIII: "His promises, as he was, mighty; But his performance, as he is now, nothing".
Since then, there has been an outcry that the research findings were misinterpreted and misused by the Lord Chancellor. The chairman of the Law Society's family law committee, Hilary Siddle, is said to have been very surprised by the Lord Chancellor's decision
which was clearly at least partly political.
The Government's motives have been widely and seriously questioned.
In his statement in June 1999, the Lord Chancellor expressed his disappointment at the results of the pilot information meetings. I, along with many others, have studied closely the magnificent summary of the research directed by the eminent Professor Janet Walker, from the centre for family studies at the university of Newcastle, on which the Lord Chancellor claims that he based his decision. The research was overseen by an advisory body, chaired by Sir Peter Barclay.
The Lord Chancellor has appeared extraordinarily uninterested in the findings of the research carried out by Professor Walker and her team. Many are worried that this valuable research has been shelved because it does not fit in with the Lord Chancellor's view of what is comfortable. Information meetings were to be the first step for couples on the road to divorce. They were said by the Government to be the primary reason for delaying implementation. However, despite the Government's interpretation of the research, I understand from Alan Sealy, co-ordinator of the family courts consortium, with which I am associated, that the meetings were widely concluded to have been highly successful. The objectives of the pilot information meetings were to provide information about the various options and services available, and to direct attention to the issues that should be considered when contemplating steps to end the marriage.
The findings show that the attendees declared themselves to be better informed about the issues, particularly the impact of divorce on children, and about the services on offer, particularly mediation. The overwhelming majority of people valued information meetings. More than 90 per cent. attending the first 14 pilots found them useful in various ways.
This was a significant study. Some 5,522 married people attended an individual information meeting, while some 2,132 married people attended a group information meeting. Group meetings, scarcely surprisingly, were not as well received as individual meetings.
The Lord Chancellor's Department expressed disappointment in the outcomes of the findings on the use of mediation and solicitors. However, the pilots were not


designed to divert people into mediation and away from solicitors. The evaluation was not designed to test diversion. The goalposts were moved after the research was under way. If that is now the Lord Chancellor's intention or wish, there is no difficulty about altering the framework for information meetings.
The pilots and the research were in fact designed to examine different ways of providing information as laid down in section 8 of the 1996 Act. They were designed to find out how people responded to that information and how they used it. There was no presumption in favour of mediation, which could be expected to have a significant impact on the percentage of people using the mediation service during the pilots.
For no apparent reason, the Lord Chancellor expressed an expectation that between 40 and 60 per cent. of people might use mediation, but it is unclear where that estimate has come from. Informed researchers and mediators agree that the figure is much too high. Perhaps when the Minister responds, she could clarify where the estimate comes from. There is a general view that between 15 and 20 per cent. would be the best-case expectation of the numbers using mediation if the Act were implemented in full.
The research showed that there was some confusion about what mediation was supposed to achieve. Some found it difficult to distinguish between mediation and marriage counselling, but 57 per cent. of people said that they would consider going to mediation if they considered it appropriate in future.
The use of mediation is a key element of the 1996 Act. Over the years, I have worked closely with the Sheila Griffiths, chairman of the Surrey mediation forum that serves my constituency, and the rest of the team. I have been enormously impressed with the forum's work, but there is a degree of cynicism, and a feeling that the Government's primary interest in mediation is to reduce pressure on the legal aid fund—now the community legal services fund. As a former Minister, I have no objection to saving the taxpayer money, but most people are dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the Government's commitment to and support for mediation services. Much more could and should be done. Mediation has only recently become part of the culture of divorce.
Mediation can eliminate unnecessary and protracted legal conflict. It is in the parents' and the children's interests to avoid entering an adversarial court battle until all other options have been exhausted. However, awareness of the value of mediation and its value as a method of dispute resolution remains. We are in a transitional process in which mediation will become more familiar and commonplace. The Lord Chancellor expressed disappointment at the number of people still saying that they would be likely to consult a solicitor. That was an extraordinary remark. Information meetings rightly encourage people to consult solicitors as providers of legal advice, and mediators routinely encourage their clients to see a solicitor. The use of solicitors and mediators are not exclusive options, and consulting a solicitor is the usual and traditional way to pursue a divorce.
In short, a tremendous opportunity has been ducked and delayed. Serious concern exists about what non-implementation of part II of the Act will mean. Again I cite David Hodson, who said that there would be: no

shift away from fault-based divorce; no passage of time and consideration; no statutory compulsory provision of information; no provision to offer a meeting with a guidance counsellor; no provision of legal aid for marriage counselling for those eligible; no requirement that all arrangements for the future in respect of children, property and finance should be made prior to the granting of a divorce; and no power for the court to give a direction requiring each party to attend a meeting with a mediator.
It is sad that the opportunity has been missed. I hope that the Minister can convey to her Department just how appalled people in the family law community are about the irresponsible step that has been taken. The Government are only too aware of the problems of the Child Support Agency. People's refusal to co-operate over child support is closely connected to their bitterness about the divorce process. It is interesting that a former Lord Chancellor, who, like me, happens to have had the good fortune to remain married to the same person for a considerable length of time, should feel deeply and strongly about ways to make divorce more civilised. An opportunity has been delayed and avoided, and I hope that the Minister will reassure people by making it clear that a civilised, enlightened and constructive measure will be properly and responsibly implemented.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department(Jane Kennedy): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on winning an opportunity to debate divorce. Like me, she may have been a little anxious that we would be here much later in the morning, but we have now a good opportunity to debate a serious matter. I congratulate her on the way in which she presented her case. I agree with a large part of what she said, and the principles underlying the Family Law Act 1996 were, as she rightly said, supported by all parties.
I must take issue with the right hon. Lady over her interpretation of the decision taken by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor last June. However, I am grateful to her for faxing her document to my office today and for the helpful way in which she has approached the subject. I hope to reassure her on some points, but should her draw attention to two comments on information meetings in her document.
Towards the bottom of the page on which information meetings are discussed, it is recorded that during the debate it was said:
The apparent simplicity of this new provision is deceptive. Most people know what information is, and most have some idea of what going to a meeting is like. Yet putting these two elements together and transforming the concept of an individual information meeting from a "good idea" into reality has not been straightforward.
The document goes on to say:
The Lord Chancellor's recently expressed disappointment with the research findings in respect of the pilots illustrates this problem.
On rhetoric and reality, it says:
The evaluation of the pilots suggests that sometimes the elements of the information meeting may clash: saving marriages is an objective distinct from securing civilised divorce.
It is that part of the decision that was made last year that I want to expand on this evening.
As the right hon. Lady said, the Family Law Act 1996 requires all divorcing or separating couples to attend information meetings, the purpose of which is to inform


couples about the issues that they would have to face, the options open to them and the services available to help them. It will also, as the right hon. Lady rightly pointed out, make them aware of the enormity of the decision that they are contemplating.
The interim results of the research into the pilot information meetings were found to be disappointing in a range of respects. That was particularly so given the great hopes that had been attached to the provision of compulsory information meetings in part II, and the effect that it was expected to have in saving marriages or, where that was not possible, in persuading people to settle their differences through mediation rather than by resorting to lawyers and the courts.
Sadly, the numbers of people taking up the offer of a meeting with a marriage counsellor and the numbers of people who attempted mediation after attending the information meeting pilots were lower than we had expected, and that disappointment was increased by the fact that those participating in the pilot information meetings were all volunteers. Requiring unwilling conscripts to attend a compulsory meeting might perhaps produce even more disappointing results.
It is worth emphasising that it was the preliminary results that the Government found disappointing, not the research itself. We are extremely grateful to all the voluntary bodies and others who helped to provide the pilot information meetings, and to the people who volunteered to attend. We are grateful also to Professor Janet Walker and her team at Newcastle university who have been conducting the research for us. There is certainly no criticism of any of them. However, the point of piloting a new initiative such as part II is to find out whether it works as intended, and whether it achieves the results that were desired. The evidence so far is that the information meetings as piloted have not achieved what we hoped they would.
Those results are only the preliminary results of a research project that continues, however. The right hon. Lady felt that we had shelved the research, so I want to reassure her on that point. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has not made any final decision, but has decided to wait until the final research results are available, which will be this summer, before deciding how to proceed. As he explained in a speech given to the UK Family Law Conference at the time, family law is too sensitive and important for the Government to want to rush ahead with implementing legislation on a doctrinaire or speculative basis, without the best empirical information available, coupled with informed professional advice.
The least that a responsible Government could do before making a final decision on part II is to await the final results of the very extensive piloting and research that the right hon. Lady's Government commissioned, and for which the taxpayer pays. When we have those results, the Lord Chancellor will be in a position to decide how to proceed and to consider whether, for example, further research is necessary to do justice to those difficult questions.
The focus of divorce reform should not be based on dogma concerning fault or no fault divorce. Divorce law enables people to divorce on a no-fault basis after two

years apart, with consent, if that is what they wish. It is true that most people who divorce prefer to do so on the basis of adultery or unreasonable behaviour, rather than waiting two years. Even so, fewer than 10 per cent. of divorce cases are fought out through the courts. The vast majority are uncontested and dealt with on paper under the special procedure. The focus should therefore not be on the dogma, but on the principles that are set out in part I of the Family Law Act.
I take the opportunity to confirm that the Government remain committed to those principles: first, the institution of marriage must be supported as the best proven method of bringing up children, within a stable family relationship, by two parents; secondly, the parties to a marriage that may have broken down are to be encouraged to take all practical steps, by marriage counselling or otherwise, to save the marriage; and thirdly, a marriage that has irretrievably broken down and is being brought to an end should be brought to an end with minimal distress to the parties and to the children affected, and with questions dealt with in a way designed to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances.
All the work that the Government are doing in that area is intended to support those principles.
May I reassure the right hon. Lady further? I want to identify the work that we are undertaking. It is in three main areas: the provision of information for divorcing and separating couples; increased funding for marriage and relationship support agencies; and the further development of family mediation.
I will say a little more about each of those areas in the short time that I have. The provision of information to divorcing and separating couples is obviously sound. The interim results of research into the information meeting pilots have shown that the people who attended thought that the provision of information about marriage, mediation, the divorce process, the effect of divorce on children and so on had been extremely valuable to them.
Although the meetings were not as successful as the Government wished in terms of saving saveable marriages and diverting people to mediation, there is a need to provide information to divorcing and separating couples and to the children affected. Outside part II, therefore, we are taking forward the development of a series of leaflets that were originally used in the pilots, which will be made available later this year to divorcing and separating couples through the courts and other outlets: for example, citizens advice bureaux and doctors' surgeries.
We have asked the research team to undertake some further work, following up people who attended the pilot information meetings. The purpose of that work is to tell the Government how the information influenced people's behaviour later in the process. For example, we will learn whether information about the benefits of mediation would be more useful later in the process of divorce and separation.
On saving saveable marriages, the Government support marriage politically and financially. We recognise that marriage is the surest foundation for raising children and it remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain, but we recognise also that not all children are born to parents who are married.
It makes sense to seek to save saveable marriages and other relationships, especially where there are children. To that end, we are significantly increasing the money that my Department spends on marriage and on relationship support in England and Wales: to £4 million in 2000–01, rising to £5 million next year.
Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Surrey Family Mediation Service. I was impressed by the quality of its work; I commend it. We are committed to

supporting its development and are conscious of the expertise of people in that sector. We are listening to them carefully.
The service is one of more than 250 mediation services that have concluded contracts with the commission—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute to One o'clock.